[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Nagendra Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 27 August, 2025
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23831 of 2018
======================================================
Ravi Shankar Kumar son of Late Jagdish Ram resident of Village - Baghi, P.
S. - Maniyari, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Main Secretariat, Patna
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Main
Secretariat, Patna.
3. General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat,
Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Nawadah.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8389 of 2018
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Janeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-
Sarsa, P.O. Risiap, P.S. Risiap, District-Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Engineer, National Highway, Wing, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Superintending Engineer, N.H. Circle, Dehri-on-Sone.
4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, National Highway
Division, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2804 of 2020
======================================================
1. Mateen Akhter, Son of Late Md. Sayeedur Rahman, Working as Clerk in the
Office of District Treasury, at Kishanganj, P.S.-Town, District-Kishanganj.
2. Sarita Devi, Wife of Late Malik Chandra Sah, Working as Clerk in the
Office of District Treasury, at Kishanganj, P.S.-Town, District-Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
2. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj.
3. The District Treasury Officer, Kishanganj.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
2/60
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7321 of 2023
======================================================
1. Vijendra Kumar Son of Late Jitbahan Yadav, Resident of Village- Balhma,
P.O.- Babu Amouna, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad.
2. Subhash Kumar Son of Late Rajaram Yadav, Resident of Village- Catara,
P.S.- Fesar, District- Aurangabad.
3. Bipul Kumar Son of Late Mritunjay Prasad Karn, Resident of Village- Kal
Bhairav, P.S.- Jamhor, District- Aurangabad.
4. Kishor Kumar Goutam Son of Late Koushlendra Singh, Resident of Village-
Bansekhap Tola Dhibra, P.O.- Chauriya P.S.- Fesar, District- Aurangabad.
5. Manoj Kumar Son of Late Shrawan Kumar, Resident of Village-
Bhawanokhap, P.O. and P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad.
6. Priye Ranjan Kumar Son of Late Lalan Yadav, Resident of Village- Kalen,
P.O. and P.S.- Khudwan, District- Aurangabad.
7. Dipak Kumar Son of Late Kaushal Kishor Sharma, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Babu Amouna, P.S.- Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary of the Finance
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Department of Revenue and Land
Reforms, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9794 of 2023
======================================================
Nagendra Prasad Yadav Son of Late Indrajeet Rai Resident of Village-
Pokhrera, P.S.- Taraiya, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, New General Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
3/60
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23831 of 2018)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Prajapati, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate
Mr. Dineshwar Singh, Advocate
For the Intervenor/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate
Ms. Ankita Roy, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Onkar Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to GP-4
Mr. Kinkar Kumar, SC-9
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8389 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhojot Singh, Advocate
Ms. Rushali, Advocate
Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC-26
Mr. Subodh Kumar, AC to SC 26
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2804 of 2020)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Onkar Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP-26
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7321 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, SC-22
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9794 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Surendra Pd. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Nirala, Advocate
Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
Mr. Amit Kumar, AC to SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
4/60
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 27-08-2025
Pursuant to the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 23831 of 2018 and order dated 15.07.2021 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 2804 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, observing
therein that the matter is required to be considered by a Larger
Bench in view of the conflicting views taken by the Division
Benches of this Court, these matters were placed before the then
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice in the administrative side. The then
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice directed the matters to be listed
before this Full Bench. Along with the above two matters, i.e., the
other three writs i.e. CWJC No. 8389 of 2018 (Sanjay Kumar Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors.), CWJC No. 7321 of 2023 (Vijendra
Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC No. 9794
of 2023 (Nagendra Prasad Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),
which involve identical issues, have been tagged with C.W.J.C.
No. 23831 of 2018, hence, Registry has listed these three matters
also for consideration by this Bench.
2. By order dated 01.10.2021 passed in CWJC No.
23831 of 2018, the learned Single Judge, while referring the matter
before the Larger Bench, has observed in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19
as under: -
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
5/60
"17. The only question which requires
determination, in the present matter, is as to whether the
persons appointed on compassionate ground as Lower
Division Clerks after demerger in the scale of Rs. 3050-
4590/- can claim by way of right, a higher pay-scale of
Rs. 4000-6000/-. The Division Bench of this Court in
case of Smt. Mosarat Arra Khanam (supra) has, in no
uncertain terms, held as under :-
"The claim of the appellants for parity
of pay with those lower division clerks is ex facie
unsustainable. It is not in dispute that the
appellants were appointed during the years 2001
to 2004 and are placed in the pay-scale approved
for the cadre of lower division clerks. Therefore,
appellants' claim to a higher payscale sanctioned
for the higher post of Upper Division Clerks
cannot be accepted. The petitions are rightly
rejected."
18. The said Division Bench decision in case
of Smt. Mosarat Arra Khanam (supra) was evidently not
brought to the notice of subsequent Division Bench in
case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty (supra). The
Division Bench in case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
(supra) has allowed the scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/- for
persons appointed on compassionate basis after the date
of demerger, applying the doctrine of parity in the pay-
scale.
19. In my opinion, in view of the conflicting
views taken by the Division Benches of this Court in case
of Smt. Mosarat Arra Khanam (supra) and Avinash
Kumar Chakerworty (supra) on the question as to
whether the persons appointed on compassionate basis in
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
6/60
the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- can claim by way of right a
higher pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- on the doctrine of
parity in pay-scale, the matter needs to be place before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for referring the same to a
Larger Bench.
3. The learned Single Judge has, vide order dated
15.07.2021
passed in CWJC No. 2804 of 2020, referred following
questions for consideration by the Larger Bench: –
“(i) Whether the law laid down by the learned
Division Bench in case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) and
Smt. Mosarrat Aara Khanam & Anr. (supra) is the
correct law or the judgments rendered by the learned
Division Bench in the cases of Binit Kumar (supra) and
Avinash Chakerworty & Anr. (supra) lay down the
correct law?
(ii) Whether in terms of the letter of the
Finance Department Dated 20.12.2000, the
compassionate appointees, like the petitioners, are
entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- or to the pay
scale of Rs.3050-4590/-, especially taking into account
the fact that they have been appointed after the cut-off
date, i.e., 20.12.2000?
(iii) Whether at all, the compassionate
appointees, like the petitioners, are entitled to the pay
scale of Rs.4000-6000/- instead of the basic pay scale of
Rs.3050-4590/-?
4. As the issues involved in all these petitions are
similar, all the petitions are being taken up together for final
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
7/60
disposal with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for
the parties.
5. For the sake of convenience, we are referring the facts
narrated in CWJC No. 23831 of 2018 and the said matter is treated
as the lead matter.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
C.W.J.C. No. 23831 of 2018
6. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with others
was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the pay scale of
Rs.3050-4590/- on compassionate ground vide order dated
06.09.2001 issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Nawada.
It is also stated that the meeting of District Compassionate
Appointment Committee was convened under the chairmanship of
the District Magistrate and the case of the petitioner was taken up
for consideration in the said meeting for his appointment on
compassionate ground. Thereafter, the petitioner was found fit for
appointment against a Class-III post and the committee
recommended him for such appointment. The recommendation
was made on 25.11.2000. It is the further case of the petitioner that
his father died while functioning as Revenue Karmchari in the
Collectorate Nawada, on 19.01.2000 and, therefore, the petitioner
had submitted his application for compassionate appointment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
8/60
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the policy decision
of the Government to demerge the cadre of Assistant in different
posts to Lower Division Clerk (in short ‘LDC’), Upper Division
Clerk (in short ‘ÚDC’) and the Assistant in different pay scales
came into effect on 20.12.2000 but his name was under
consideration prior to the cut off date and the recommendation
was made as back as on 25.11.2000, therefore, he would be
entitled for the post of Assistant which existed prior to demerger in
the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The petitioner has based his
claim on the judgment of the learned Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No.
13577 of 2006 (Manish Kumar Pathak and Others vs. The State
of Bihar and Others) decided on 17.12.2007.
C.W.J.C. No. 2804 of 2020
8. In this case though the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee recommended the name of the petitioners
for appointment prior to the date of demerger i.e. on 20.12.2000,
both of them were appointed vide letters issued on 04.10.2001 in
the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- which was subsequently modified
on 12.04.2001 to Rs. 3050-4590/-. It is thus, the case of the
petitioners that their recommendations being that of a date prior to
the date of demerger, they would have been entitled to be
appointed on the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
9/60
6000/-. From the averments made in the writ application, it does
not appear that the petitioners raised any grievance against the
modified scale of pay granted on 12.04.2001 to Rs. 3050-4590/-.
Two representations on the record (Annexure ‘9’ series to the writ
application) seems to have been presented few days before filing
of the writ application.
C.W.J.C. No. 8389 of 2018
9. The sole petitioner in this case was appointed on
compassionate ground as a correspondence clerk vide Memo No.
20 dated 17.01.2001 in the National Highway Division,
Aurangabad in the office of Dobhi Sub-Division. He was given
pay-scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- but vide Memo No. 67 dated
10.02.2001, a corrigendum was issued by the Superintending
Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dehri On Sone in which the
pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- was amended/corrected as
Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/- which was the pay scale of Lower
Division Clerk (in short ‘LDC’). The petitioner raised a grievance
against the same after 17 years just few days before filing of the
writ application in this Court.
C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2023
10. In this case, there are altogether seven writ petitioners
who were appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground in the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
10/60
2016 and onwards in the different offices under the district of
Aurangabad. It is their contention that they have been arbitrarily
and illegally given the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- in place of
Rs. 4000-6000/-. Their contentions are based on the directions
issued by this Court in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2016 (Avinash Kumar
Chakerworty Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ) which has been
followed in C.W.J.C. No. 17151 of 2018, C.W.J.C. No. 188 of
2021, C.W.J.C. No. 4065 of 2020, C.W.J.C. No. 11759 of 2021,
C.W.J.C. No. 822 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 2092 of 2023 and other
analogous cases.
C.W.J.C. No. 9794 of 2023
11. The sole petitioner in this writ application was
appointed on 12.03.2003 by order of the District Magistrate, Saran
in the Establishment Section and later on, he was appointed in the
Block Development Office, Dariyapur, Saran. He was given the
post of ‘LDC’ in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The submission is
that Sanjeev Kapoor along with others had filed C.W.J.C. No.
15978 of 2010 which has been decided on 20.02.2023 by a learned
Single Judge of this Court (one of us Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) in
the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court passed on 23.06.2017 in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2016. The
learned Single Judge noticed the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 17 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
11/60
2023 which was in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench
in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2016 in which the Division Bench took a
view that the appointees on the compassionate ground would also
be entitled for the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Emboldened by this
judgment in the case of Sanjeev Kapoor & Ors. (supra), the
present writ application has been filed after about 20 years of his
appointment.
12. In course of hearing of these matters, this Court was
informed that the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Mosarrat Arra Khanam and Others vs. The State of Bihar and
Others (LPA No. 100 of 2012) is subject matter of challenge in Civil
Appeal No. 3965 of 2017 presently pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. This Court was of the view that in such
circumstance, it would not be appropriate to consider the same
judgment in the Full Bench but then the learned Advocate General
has produced before this Court a copy of the order dated
28.04.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
3965 of 2017 which reads as under:-
“1. The instant case is listed for directions.
2. It is brought to our notice that a Full Bench of
the High Court of judicature at Patna has been
constituted to adjudicate the issues as involved in
this case. The Full Bench is awaiting the decision
of this appeal.
3. In the facts of the case, it is suffice to observe
that the Full Bench may proceed with the hearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
12/60of the case and decide the issues in accordance
with law uninfluenced by the pendency of this
appeal. ”
13. In the aforementioned background, this Court heard
learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General
for the State.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No. 23831 of
2018:
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 23831 of 2018 would mainly contend
that this court has granted pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to the
similarly situated persons and the said order has been
implemented. However, so far as the case of the petitioner is
concerned, the respondents have denied the pay scale of Rs. 4000-
6000/-. Learned Advocate has placed reliance upon the order dated
11.03.2011 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15956 of 2006 in
the case of Umesh Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar and
others. Learned Advocate has further submitted that this Court has
also passed an order in the case of Manish Kumar Pathak (supra).
By way of the said order, this Court has allowed the pay-scale of
Rs. 4000-6000/- to the concerned petitioners, though the said
petitioners were appointed subsequent to the letter dated
20.12.2000, issued by the Finance Department mainly on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
13/60
ground that the process of selection had begun before coming into
the force of the decision of demerger. It is submitted that,
therefore, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, his case
is also on the similar footing and his application for appointment
on compassionate ground was pending before the concerned
authority before the decision of demerger was taken.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, also
placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court on 23.06.2017 passed in LPA No. 167 of 2016 in the
case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty (supra). It is submitted that
this Division Bench of the Court has held that the appellants of the
said case were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- though
they were appointed on compassionate ground after issuance of
letter of demerger dated 20.12.2000.
16. Learned counsel, at this stage, submits that the
decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.
100 of 2012 in the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam vs. the
State of Bihar would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case. Learned counsel submits that the judgment rendered by the
learned Single Judge in the said case, which has been affirmed in
the Letters Patent Appeal, does not deal with the relevant issue that
at the time of initiation of selection process, the petitioner along
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
14/60
with petitioners of CWJC No. 15956 of 2006 as well as the initial
recommendation of their appointment on compassionate ground,
there existed only one cadre of Assistant in Muffasil offices. The
said unified cadre of Assistant came to be separated/demerged on
20.12.2000, thereby the posts of Lower Division Clerk and Upper
Division Clerk were reconstituted with separate pay scales of
Rs.3050-4590/- and Rs. 4000-6000/- respectively. Thus, when the
recommendation of the petitioner was tentatively forwarded on
25.11.2000, the petitioner could have been appointed in the
merged cadre of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. At
this stage, it is further submitted that the decision rendered by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 167 of 2016 is not in conflict with the
judgment rendered in LPA No. 100 of 2012.
17. Learned Advocate would further contend that once
the dependents are appointed on compassionate ground on a post
where there is also regular recruitment, there cannot be any
discrimination insofar as applicable pay scale, from those regularly
appointed, only on the basis of source of appointment. The
appointment on compassionate ground is also a source of
appointment. It is further submitted that the duty performed by the
petitioner and the duty to be performed by the direct recruits is
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
15/60
similar and, therefore, the petitioner is also required to be granted
the similar pay scale.
18. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the
decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.05.2025 in
Civil Appeal No. 5842 of 2025 (State of Odisha and Others vs
Jita Luha reported in 2025 INSC 813) and allied matters.
19. Learned counsel referred the policy of the State,
which has been produced at page ‘110’ of the compilation of
CWJC No. 23831 of 2018, and thereafter referred page ‘118’ of
the said compilation. Learned counsel has adopted the submissions
canvassed by the other learned Advocates in the connected
applications.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No.
8389 of 2018:
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 8389 of 2018 only submits that on
12.06.1999, the Executive Engineer, National Highway Circle
forwarded the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
Thereafter, on 28.03.2000, the meeting of Compassionate
Appointment Committee was held. The said Committee
recommended for appointment of the petitioner on Class-III post.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
16/60
It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post
of Correspondence Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/- on
17.01.2001. However, thereafter, on 10.02.2001, the concerned
authority reduced the pay-scale of the petitioner from Rs.4000-
6000/- to Rs.3050-4590/-.
21. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the
decision rendered in the case of Maharashtra State Financial
Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2023) 11 SCC 186, more particularly paragraphs 2, 31, 32 and 89
thereof.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No.
2804 of 2020:
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in
the present case, petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 04.01.2001 as
Assistant on the basis of decision of the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee taken on 11.01.1999. He was appointed
in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Similarly, petitioner No.2 was
appointed on 04.01.2000 on the basis of the decision taken by the
concerned committee on 26.07.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-
6000. Subsequently, it was changed to Rs.3050-4590/-. At the
outset, learned counsel submits that the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty (supra) has
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
17/60
decided the issue and it was directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.
4000-6000/- as the Clerks appointed in the year 2005-06 were
given the aforesaid scale in the Formal Education Department.
Thereafter, various compassionate appointees were granted the pay
scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- on the basis of the orders passed by the
Division Bench. However, no decision was taken in the case of the
petitioners despite representation filed by them. Learned counsel
has referred the Bihar Litigation Policy and thereafter contended
that it is the policy of the government to grant similar benefit to all
in similar type of cases, despite which the same is not being
granted to the petitioner.
23. At this stage, learned counsel submits that there is no
conflict between the decisions rendered by the Division Bench in
the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra) and in the case of
Avinash Kumar Chakerworty (supra). In fact, the first case was on
the ground of candidates directly appointed after 20.12.2000
pursuant to the advertisement of the BPSC made prior to the
aforesaid cut-off date. The advertisement was made for
appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800. However, the
decision rendered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
(supra) was on a different point. Learned counsel referred the same
decision rendered in the case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
18/60
(supra). Learned counsel has referred Clause 5(ii) of the circular
dated 20.12.2000 and submitted that the said clause provides that
if the selection for higher scale is pending, it has to be cancelled
and fresh selection process was to be started, which was not done
with respect to BPSC selection, which was advertised prior to
2012, and, in fact, the selection process was pending, which was
completed in the year 2004 and 2006. In fact, circular dated
20.12.2000 relates to unification of cadre in all Regional Offices of
Clerks, i.e., Accounts Clerks, Correspondence Clerks, Lower
Division Accounts Clerks, Lower Division Correspondence Clerks
and they were granted the same basic pay scale of Rs. 3050-
4590/-. At this stage, it is contended that the compassionate
appointment was made on the aforesaid posts depending on the
available vacancies and the qualification was also the same.
Further, by Notification dated 25.03.2015, Lower Division
Accounts Clerks appointed after the year 1999 were given the pay
scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but compassionate Lower Division
Clerks were not being given the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-.
Thus, this Court in the case of Binit Kumar and Others vs. The
State of Bihar and Others and allied matters (CWJC No.9921 of
2017), rendered decision on 21.08.2017. It is submitted that this
Court directed to give pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
19/60
compassionate appointee Lower Division Accounts Clerks. In LPA
No. 1702 of 2017, (State of Bihar vs. Binit Kumar and Others),
the decision rendered in the case of Binit Kumar and Others vs.
The State of Bihar and Others by the learned Single Judge was
affirmed. The S.L.P. filed against the order passed by the Division
Bench has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
thereafter Lower Division Accounts Clerk appointed after
20.12.2000 were granted pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-.
24. Learned counsel, at this stage, submits that in similar
type of case, i.e., in the case of State of Bihar vs. Biresh Kumar
Singh, the Division Bench in LPA No. 766 of 2019 passed an
order dated 19.09.2023 relying upon the decision rendered in the
case of Binit Kumar and Others (supra) and directed the
respondent authorities to pay the same pay-scale to the petitioners
of the said case.
25. Thereafter, learned counsel has submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court once again in case of State of Bihar vs.
Sunny Prakash passed an order on 18.01.2013 in Civil Appeal
No. 516 of 2013. Learned counsel has also relied upon the order
passed by this Court in the case of Radhe Shyam and Others vs.
The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 4065 of 2020) on 25.02.2021.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
20/60
26. Learned counsel has lastly submitted that, as per
Clause 4.C(1) of the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011, if the similarly
placed employees have been granted the benefit on the basis of the
judgment of the High Court, then other similarly situated persons
should also get the same benefits. The issue for implementation of
Bihar Litigation Policy has already been decided in Full Bench
decision in the case of Amaresh Kumar Singh vs. The State of
Bihar and Others, reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 928, wherein it has
been observed that the Bihar State Litigation Policy would be
applicable and the order of reinstatement of the concerned
petitioner will be passed. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that
appropriate directions be issued to the respondents.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C.
No. 7321 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 9794 of 2023
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ
applications have adopted the submissions made in C.W.J.C. No.
23831 of 2018 and C.W.J.C. No. 2804 of 2020 which we have
already taken note of hereinabove.
Submissions on behalf of Intervenors in C.W.J.C.
No. 23831 of 2018
28. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the intervenors in CWJC No. 23831 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
21/60
2018 has also adopted the submissions canvassed by the learned
Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner(s) in the
connected applications. Learned Senior Counsel has placed
reliance upon the following decisions: –
“State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, reported in (2006) 9
SCC 321; State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar, reported in
(2008) 12 SCC 219; Bihar State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. v. Naresh
Kumar Mishra, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110; State of W.B. v.
Pantha Chatterjee, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 469; Food
Corporation of India v. Ashis Kumar Ganguly, reported in (2009)
7 SCC 734; State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1
SCC 148; State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, reported in (2009) 9
SCC 514″. These are the judgments cited on the point of “equal
pay for equal work”.
Submissions on behalf of the State in all the matters:
29. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Shahi, Learned
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State has
mainly submitted that with a view to bring uniformity in the
constitution of the cadres on the pattern of the Central
Government, the State Government vide its letter No. 6389 dated
28.09.1999, took a decision to demerge and reconstitute the
Clerical cadre. Thereafter, under Clause 5 of the decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
22/60contained in Memo No. 8825 dated 20.12.2000, the Assistant
cadre was demerged as Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division
Clerk. The said demerger took place prior to the appointment of
the petitioners. The pay-scale attached with the post of Upper
Division Clerk was Rs.4000-6000/-, which is a promotional post
for the Lower Division Clerks, carrying the pay-scale of Rs.3050-
4590/-.
30. It is the specific contention of learned Advocate
General that the petitioners in these writ applications came to be
appointed in terms of the policy decision dated 20.12.2000 on the
post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590/-
on compassionate ground after demerger. As regards the petitioner
in C.W.J.C. No. 23831 of 2018, it is submitted that his final
recommendation for appointment by the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee was made on 17.01.2001 and the offer of
appointment was issued on 06.09.2001.
31. Learned Advocate General invited the attention of
the Court to the clarificatory letter issued by the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 20.06.2001 clarifying
that the appointments on compassionate ground on Class-III posts
were to be made in the then existing pay-scale of Rs.1200-1800/-,
which, upon revision of pay, is Rs.3050-4590/-. All the petitioners,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
23/60
having been appointed after the demerger of the cadre cannot now
claim the higher scale citing the decisions either of the Hon’ble
Apex Court or of this Hon’ble Court, as the ratio decidendi in
those matters are not applicable in the case of the present
petitioners. The petitioner cannot claim parity with those appointed
pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1998. They form
an isolated group as has been held by the Hon’ble Division Bench
in the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra).
32. He has further contended that insofar as the
submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the persons
appointed against due advertisement and selection have been
allowed the higher pay-scale is concerned, the said plea is also not
tenable in view of the fact that once the selection proceeded on the
basis of the advertisement, the terms of advertisement could not be
altered. After bifurcation of the cadre of Assistant-cum-Typist, the
recruitment process proceeded without modification. The selected
candidates were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the revised
pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. Such direct recruits constitute an
isolated group. It is submitted that the reasoning and rational
provided in the judgment of the learned Writ Court in Manish
Kumar Pathak‘s case are clearly distinguishable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
24/60
33. He has lastly submitted that the writ petitioners have
approached this Court after 16 to 20 years of their appointment as
Lower Division Clerks in the pay scale of Rs.3050-Rs.4590/-.
They are not being discriminated as alleged on the ground of their
being appointed on compassionate ground. It is further contended
that appointments of the retrenched employees of non-formal
education were made under the schemes framed on the directions
of the Hon’ble High Court. The writ petitions are devoid of merit
and the same be dismissed.
34. Learned Advocate General has relied upon the judgment
of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3516 of 2011 (Sriman
Narayan Singh & anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,) to submit
that this Court has dealt with the same controversy with regard to
the persons appointed on compassionate ground after decision of
demerger dated 20.12.2000 and the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. It
has been held that there was no error in the decision granting pay-
scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- for those appointed on compassionate
basis after the date of the demerger. It is submitted that in C.W.J.C.
No. 10441 of 2010 (Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam & Ors. Vs.
The State of Bihar & Ors.), the learned Single Judge of this
Court held inter alia that the writ petitioners who were appointees
of the year in between 2001-2004 in the scale of 3050-4590/- were
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
25/60
sanguine of their entitlement to the scale of Rs.3050- 4590/-, only
under the Finance Department Letter dated 20.12.2000. They did
not raise any grievance that any advertisement had been published
in 1998 providing a pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/- for the same post.
The institution of C.W.J.C. No.13577 of 2006 by those recruited
under the advertisement of 1998 cannot bring any succor to the
petitioners who accepted their appointment on a specified pay-
scale and continued on the same without demur for long years.
35. It is submitted that in Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
(supra) prayers were made on the basis of the judgment in
C.W.J.C. No. 13577 of 2006 and order was passed on 17.12.2007.
In the Letters Patent Appeal, the Hon’ble Division Bench could not
take note of the circumstances under which the writ petition was
allowed. In that case, there was an advertisement for the post of
Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, the advertisement was
not cancelled in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5 of the
subsequent Letter Dated 20.12.2000 rather appointments were
made after demerger, in such circumstance, the writ court directed
the Government to appoint the petitioners in the clerical cadre as
existing prior to demerger in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. It is
submitted that the judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 13577 of 2006 could not be cited in the facts of these cases.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
26/60
All these writ petitioners are appointees of 2001 and thereafter
they remained contented with the pay-scale given to them. Some
of them have already retired from service, thereafter they started
raising issue of pay-scale on the basis of judgment passed on
17.12.2007. Moreover, in Avinash Kumar Chakerworty‘ case
(supra) and the subsequent judgments relying upon that, the earlier
Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Mosarrat
Arra Khanam & Ors (supra) was not cited.
Consideration
36. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Advocate General for the State, the members of the
Hon’ble Full Bench have discussed the matter at length.
We will first examine the policy of compassionate
appointment in existence prior to the de-merger of the cadre of
Assistant as ‘LDC’ and Upper Division Clerk (in short ‘UDC’).
The guidelines in this regard issued by the General Administration
and Reforms Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo No.
3/lh0 2-2067/90 dk0 13293/iVuk-15] fnukad&5 vDVqcj] 1991 provides
that in case of death of a government servant in harness, his
dependant would be appointed on certain posts of Class 3 and
Class 4 Posts. Clause (8) talks of the posts and the pay-scale on
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
27/60
which compassionate appointment would be made. The same is
being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“(8) fdu inksa ij fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gS%&
(d) vcrd ds funsZ”k ds vuqlkj vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij oxZ&4 ds
vfrfjDr oxZ&3 ds oSls gh inksa ij fu;qfDr dh tk dlrh Fkh ftl~ ij fu;qfDr
fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx@fcgkj jkT; voj lsok p;u i’kZn ds ek/;e ls ugha gksrh
gks A
mi;qZDr fu;e dks la”kksf/kr djrs gq,ljdkj us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd
fuEufyf[kr inksa ij vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gS %
(i) oxZ 4 ds lHkh in A
(ii) 1200&1800 rd ds osrueku ds oxZ&3 ds lHkh in A”
37. The Finance Department’s Resolution No. -3-M-2-5-ve-
Pu-11/99-3435 F (2) dated 8-6-1999 relates to the revision of scale
of pay of 70 categories of Government Employees whose cases
were referred to the Fitment Committee for reconsideration. It is
stated thereunder that:-
“…. The State Government had notified the
revised pay scales of it employees vide Finance
Department’s Resolution No.-3-M-2-5-ve-Pu-
th
01/99-669 (F/2) dated 8 February, 1999. As stated
in para 2 of the said Resolution dated 8-2-1999 the
matter of the pay scales of certain categories of
employees as mentioned in Annexure V of the
aforesaid Resolution was to be sent back to the
Fitment Committee for re-consideration.
Accordingly, the Fitment Committee was requested
vide Finance Department’s Letter No. U.O. I. 244-F
dated 12-2-1999.
The Fitment Committee reviewed the matter
and suggested no change in the pay scales already
recommended.
Accordingly, the State Government have
accepted the recommendations of the Fitment
Committee regarding the pay scales of 70 posts
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
28/60mentioned in Annexure V of Resolution dated 8-2-
99 Post wise revised scales are shown in Schedule I
of this Resolution.
The pay of Government servant whose scale
of pay is being revised by this Resolution will be
fixed according to the principles and procedures
laid down in the Finance Department’s Resolution
No. 660 dated 8-2-1999 read with its corrigendum
issued vide Memo No. 3277 dated 2-6-1999
conditional recommendation of the Fitment
Committee regarding these categories of employees
will be equally applicable to the instance
cases……..”
38. In Schedule ‘I’ against the designation of post of
Cashier, Bill Clerk (Secretariat & Attached Offices), Sr. Bill Clerk,
Lower Division Assistant in the pay scale of 1200-1800 the revised
pay scale has been shown as Rs. 4000-6000/-.
39. It is an admitted position that on the recommendation of
the Fitment Committee the different cadres of the services in the
State Government were to be brought on the line of the Central
structure. A decision in this regard was taken vide Finance
Department’s Letter No. 6389 dated 28.09.1999. The Finance
Department, Government of Bihar came out with Memo No. 3-M-
2/5- ve-pu-9 /99-8825 vi (2) Patna dated 20th December, 2000
issued under the signature of the Special Secretary to the
Government addressed to the Accountant General, Bihar.
Paragraph ‘3’ of the Memo provides that the post of Clerical cadre
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
29/60
would be de-merged into two posts namely, (i) Lower Division
Clerk in pay scale of 3050-4590, (ii) Upper Division Clerk in the
pay scale of 4000-6000/-. Clause 5(i) and (ii) are important to take
note of. According to 5(i), after issuance of this memo direct
appointments would be made on the post of Lower Division Clerk
and the promotional avenue would be he post of Upper Division
Clerk.
40. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5 specifically provides that if
any appointment process for a post of Clerk in higher pay scale is
in progress then the selection process shall be immediately
cancelled. These candidates would be given another opportunity to
participate in the selection process for the lower category/lowest
category of posts without charging any fee from them for a second
time.
41. Subsequently vide Letter No. 3M-2-5-9/99-8826 dated
20.12.2000, the State Government in it;s Finance Department
decided to demerge the clerical cadre posts in different posts.
42. Paragraph ‘3’ of the Memo provides that the post of
Assistant would be de-merged into three posts namely, (i) Lower
Division Clerk in pay scale of 3050-4590, (ii) Upper Division
Clerk in the pay scale of 4000-6000/- and (iii) Assistant in the pay
scle of Rs. 5500-9000/. Clause 5(i) and (ii) are important to take
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
30/60
note of. According to 5(i), after issuance of this memo and till
further order direct appointments would be made on the junior
most post/lowest post falling in the demerged posts until a re-
classification of the posts and the number of posts in different
categories do not take place through the General Administration
Department with the consent of the Finance Department. This also
clearly says that by virtue of this decision, the vacancies for the
present on the post of Assistant would be taken as the vacancies in
the ‘LDC; and the vacancies in the category of Personal Assistant
would be taken as the vacancies in the post of Stenographer Group
‘D’.
43. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 5 specifically provides that if
any appointment process for a post higher than the Junior most
category of the post in terms of Clause (i) is in progress then the
selection process shall be immediately cancelled even if the
selection process has already been completed. Thus, candidates
would be given another opportunity to participate in the selection
process for the junior most category/lowest category of posts
without charging any fee from them for a second time.
44. From the Government’s decision as contained in Letter
No. 8826 dated 20th December, 2000 issued by the Department of
Finance, Government of Bihar, it is crystal clear that on and after
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
31/60
issuance of this letter whatever vacancies were available on the
post of Assistant (prior to de-merger) would be taken as the
vacancies available for the post of ‘LDC’ in the payscale of 3050-
4590/-. It is the mandate of the letter which is in the form of a
policy decision of the Government that any selection process going
on for any higher posts than that of the lowest posts would be
canceled with immediate effect even if the selection process has
been completed.
45. In consonance with the decision as contained in Letter
No. 8826 dated 20th December, 2000 of the Department of
Finance, Government of Bihar, the General Administration and
Reforms Department issued a Letter No. 3/M 1-03/2001 ka-3385
dated 20th June, 2001. This refers to the Memo No. 13293 dated
05.10.1991 which we have already referred hereinabove. The letter
dated 20th June, 2001 is being reproduced hereinabove for a ready
reference:-
“i= la[;k&3@,e 1&03@2001 dk0&3385
fcgkj ljdkj]dkfeZd ,o aç’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx
Jh gk#.k j’khn]
ljdkj ds la;qä lfpo A
lsokesa]
lHkh foHkkx @ lHkh foHkkxk/;{k
lHkh ize.Myh; vk;qDr
lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh A
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
32/60iVuk&15] fnukad 20 twu] 2001
fo”k;:&osru iqujh{k.k ds dkj.k vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij oxZ&3 esa fu;qfä gsr qiqujhf{kr
osrueku dk fu/kkZj.k A
egk’k;-
mi;qZä fo”k; ds lanHkZ es adkfeZd ,oa ç’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds Kki la[;k 13293 fnukad 05-
10-91 dh vksj vkidk /;kuk–“V djrs gq, funsZ’kkuqlkj dguk gS fd mä i= ds vUrxZr ;g lwfpr fd;k
x;k Fkk fd oxZ&4 ds lHkh ian ,oa 1200&1800 rd ds osrueku ds oxZ&3 ds inksa ij vuqdEik ds vk/kkj
ij fu;qfä dh tk ldrh gSA
jkT; ljdkj ds dfeZ;ksa ds NBs osruiqujh{k.k ds i’pkr~ ;g ç’u fopkjk/khu Fkk fd oxZ&3 es
avuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfä gsrq 1200&1800 ds osrueku dk çfrjFkkuh osru ¼Replacement Scale½
D;k gks A foÙk foHkkx }kjk muds i=kad 8325 foå ¼2½ fnukad 2012-2000 rFkk 1826 foå ¼2½ fnukad 20-
12-2000 ds rgr lEZoxkasa dk i`FFkdj.k djrs gq, fuEure osrueku vFkkZr~ fuEuoxhZ; fyfida ¼osrueku
3050&4590½ ds inksa ij gh lh/kh fu;qfä dh dkjZokbZ dk funsZ’k fn;k x;k gSA
vr% mi;qZä vuqns’k ds Øe esa ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd foÙk foHkkx ds mäLoh–R;kns’kksa ds
fuxZr gksus ds ckn ,oa vxys vkns’k rd vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij Hkh oxZ&3 esa fu;qfä ds fy, osrueku dh
lhek 3050&4590&jgsxh A rnuqlkj o”kZ 1991 ds mä ifji= esa oxZ&3 ds fy, fu/kkZfjr osrueku
¼1200&1800&½ dk iqujhf{kr osrueku #å 3050&4590&i<+k tk;A
fo’oklHkktu]
gk:.k j’khnljdkj ds l;qä lfpo A”
46. It is evident on a conjoint reading of the Letter No.
8826 dated 20th December, 2000 and the Letter No. 3/M 1-03/2001
ka-3385 of the General Administration Department that on the one
hand, it was made clear that all the vacancies prior to demerger
would be taken as the vacancy available in the junior most/lowest
post created after demerger, at the same time the General
Administration Department made it clear that after the Sixth Pay
revision, the State Government had taken a decision that for the
purpose of appointment on compassionate ground against such
Class III posts in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800/-, the replacement
scale would be Rs.3050-4590/-. It is evident that the decision of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
33/60
the General Administration and Reforms Department, Government
of Bihar specifically mentions the Finance Department’s letter no.
8825 by which it was directed that after bifurcation of cadres,
direct appointments would be made on the post of lower division
clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-.
47. In the aforementioned policy already in existence, the
writ petitioners came to be appointed on the post of lower division
clerk in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. So far as the petitioner in
CWJC No. 23831 of 2018 is concerned, he was appointed by the
District Magistrate, Nawada vide Memo No. 94 dated 06.09.2001.
The petitioners in CWJC No. 2804 of 2020 were appointed by
letters issued on 04.01.2001 in the scale of Rs.4000-6000/- which
was subsequently modified on 12.04.2001 to Rs.3050-4590/-.
They are claiming their rights to get pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-
on the ground that the District Establishment Committee had
recommended their names prior to the notification of demerger
with effect from 20.12.2000. The fact remains that they accepted
the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. They claimed to have made their
representation on 20.12.2019 and 06.01.2020 just before filing of
the writ petition. They are now looking for their current and arrears
of salary in the revised scale of Rs.4000-6000/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
34/60
48. At this stage, we find that all these writ applications
have a common contention. They relied upon the judgment of this
Court passed on 17.12.2007 in 13577 of 2006 (Manish Kumar
Pathak‘s case). A perusal of the judgment in the case of Manish
Kumar Pathak (supra) would show that the petitioners in the said
writ application were applicants for the post of Assistant-cum-
Typist in the pay scale of 1200-1800/- pursuant to the
advertisement no. 4/98 issued by the Bihar Public Service
Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPSC’) in the
district of Bhojpur at Ara.
49. They appeared in the selection test conducted by the
BPSC whereafter, they were appointed under order No. 14 and 101
of 2004-2005 Memo No. 549 dated 7th June, 2004 and Memo No.
150 dated 21.03.2005 under the signature of the District
Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara. They raised a grievance that they were
not appointed in the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-
1800 i.e. Rs. 4000-6000/- but in the lower scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-
which was admissible to the LDC.
50. A learned Single Judge presiding over the writ Court
perused the instructions of the State Government as contained in
Letter Dated 20th December, 2000 and took a view that when the
selection process had been initiated by issuance of advertisement,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
35/60
there was one post of Assistant-cum-Typist in the scale of Rs.
1200-1800/- but the selection process was delayed unnecessarily
which was beyond the control of the petitioners, hence, they
cannot be allowed to suffer on account of delay of appointing
authority. The learned Writ Court further observed that in view of
Clause ‘5’ of the instructions contained in Letter dated 20 th
December, 2000, if the authorities were not inclined to appoint the
petitioners in the revised payscale of advertised post, they ought to
have cancelled the advertisement and the selection process. In the
opinion of the learned writ court, if the government had not
chosen to cancel the advertisement and the selection process then
they had to appoint the petitioners in the corresponding revised
pay scale of the post.
51. It appears from the orders passed by different
Benches of the learned Writ Courts in C.W.J.C. No. 15956/06
(Umesh Prasad and Others vs. the State of Bihar and Others);
C.W.J.C. No. 5152/10 (Dheeraj Kumar and Others vs. The State of
Bihar and Others); C.W.J.C. No. 11096/11 (Arbind Kumar and
Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others) that the petitioners in
these writ applications were the appointees on compassionate
ground. They relied upon the views expressed by a Division Bench
in the case of Ganesh Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
36/60
Others reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 159 wherein a view was taken
that if the process of appointment was initiated and concluded on
22.08.2000 and the recommendation in favour of the petitioners
was for the post of Clerk, they cannot be denied benefit of this
recommendation for the simple reason that the appointment letters
were issued subsequent to 20.12.2000 and the petitioners could not
have been appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk
depriving them of the payscale on the post for which they were
recommended.
C.W.J.C. No. 10441 of 2010 distinguished the case of
compassionate appointment from that of the petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 13577 of 2006
52. While the aforementioned writ applications were
decided/disposed of with directions, a writ petition being C.W.J.C.
No. 10441 of 2010 with other analogous matters came to be
considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned
Single Judge was apprised of the order dated 17.12.2007 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 13577 of 2006 which was affirmed in the Letters
Patent Appeal and challenge to the same in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also failed. Attempt was made to demonstrate that the
petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 10441 of 2010 who were appointees on
the compassionate ground possessed the minimum qualification
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
37/60
prescribed in the Advertisement for recruitment through the
Commission, they were discharging the same nature of duties
which those who have been recruited in terms of the advertisement
were discharging. It was contended that there was no justification
for grant of a lesser payscale to them. Principles of equal pay for
equal work was cited before the learned Single Judge on the
strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs Rajesh Mohan
Shukla & Ors reported in AIR 2007 SC 2509.
51. The learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10441 of
2010 considered the submissions of the parties and held inter alia
as under:-
“…..The petitioners were not recruited under any
advertisement which mentioned any particular pay-scale.
Had the petitioners been offered compassionate
appointment in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-, but
granted the scale of Rs.3050-4590/-, the matter may have
been entirely different. On the contrary, the date on which
they came to be appointed, a clear government instruction
held the ground on 20.6.2001 that under the Finance
Department Letter No.8925 dated 20.12.2000
compassionate appointments on Grade III was to be
granted in the scale of Rs.3050-4590/- only. There is no
challenge by the petitioners to this decision……….”
53. While rejecting the submissions of the petitioners
on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the learned Writ Court
observed thus:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
38/60“………..The petitioners were appointed in the years
2001- 2004 in the scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. Quite
obviously, they were sanguine of their entitlement to
the scale of Rs.3050- 4590/- only under the Finance
Department Letter dated 20.12.2000. They did not
raise any grievance that any advertisement had been
published in 1998 providing a payscale of Rs.4000-
6000/- for the same post. The institution of C.W.J.C.
No.13577/06 by those recruited under the
advertisement of 1998 cannot bring any succor to the
petitioners who accepted their appointment on a
specified pay-scale and continued on the same
without demur for long years. Merely because certain
orders may have been passed by the Court with
regard to another category of persons who are clearly
distinguishable from the petitioners, superficial
similarity cannot be sufficient to hold that they are
entitled to parity in pay-scale. It has rightly been
urged on behalf of the respondents that the pay-scale
of Rs.4000- 6000/- was mentioned in the
advertisement of 1998 and was thus the ground for
relief to those recruited under the advertisement. The
petitioners cannot be permitted to indulge in fence
sitting to seek parity in relief with those from whom
they are distinguishable…….”
54. We have noticed that on behalf of the petitioners, a
number of judgments have been placed before us such as State of
Kerala vs. B. Renjith Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 12
SCC 219, State of W.B. and Others vs. Pantha Chatterjee and
Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 469, Food Corporation of
India and Others vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly and Others
reported in (2009) 7 SCC 734, State of Punjab and Others vs.
Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Bihar
State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others vs. Naresh
Kumar Mishra and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 110 to
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
39/60
buttress the point of equal pay for equal work. Learned counsel for
the petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment in the
case of Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan (supra), State of
Haryana v. Jasmer Singh reported in (1996) 11 SCC 77 and UT
Chandigarh, Admn. v. Manju Mathur reported in (2011) 2 SCC
452 to make a submission that the petitioners would be entitled
for the same scale of pay on the principle of equal pay for equal
work.
55. In our considered opinion the real issue involved in
these matters are not to be resolved by applying the principles of
equal pay for equal work. A question arises as to whether the
petitioners could have been appointed on the post of Assistant
which was a post prior to demerger in the revised pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000/-. The petitioners are seeking parity with those
direct recruits who had participated in the selection process
pursuant to the advertisement of 1998 and in whose case despite
the existence of sub-clause (ii) of clause (5) of the letter dated 20 th
December, 2000 no step for cancellation of the selection process
was taken rather they were appointed in the year 2004-05 but were
offered a lesser pay scale. The case of this petitioners are clearly
distinguishable. We agree with the submissions of learned
Advocate General that in this case, the pay scale of Rs.3050-
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
40/60
Rs.4590/- is of ‘LDC’ irrespective of source of appointment, thus
there cannot be any argument on the principles of equal pay for
equal work. We are of the considered opinion that this principle
has no application at all in these cases.
Division Bench Judgment in Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam
56. The judgment of the learned Writ Court in Smt.
Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra) came to be challenged in LPA
No. 100 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
By its order dated 19.02.2014, the Hon’ble Division Bench
presided over by the then Hon’ble the Chief Justice held that the
direct recruits were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued
by the BPSC in 1998 for the recruitment on the post of Assistant-
cum-Typist in the existing pay scale of 1200-1800. The selection
process was completed in 2005 or thereabout but the cadre was
bifurcated in the year 1999. After bifurcation of the cadre of
Assistant-cum-Typist, the recruitment process was continued
without modification. The Hon’ble Division Bench has observed
interalia as under:-
“……….It is apparent that these direct recruits constitute
one isolated group. The appellants cannot have legitimate
claim of parity of pay with those direct recruits .
The claim of the appellants for parity of pay with those
lower division clerks is ex facie unsustainable. It is not in
dispute that the appellants were appointed during the years
2001 to 2004 and are placed in the pay-scale approved for
the cadre of lower division clerks. Therefore, appellants’
claim to a higher pay-scale sanctioned for the higher post of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
41/60Upper Division Clerks cannot be accepted. The Petitions are
rightly rejected……”
Judgment in case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
57. Subsequently, Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
(supra) case came before a learned Writ Court for consideration.
The petitioners in the said writ application made a prayer for
directing the respondents for granting them pay scale of Rs.4000-
6000 on the ground that in similar circumstances, other persons
were granted same relief. The facts of this case revealed that all the
petitioners were appointed in the clerical cadre of the Collectorate
of Siwan on compassionate ground. The petitioner nos. 1 and 4
were appointed by the office order no. 86 dated 06.08.2002 and
petitioner no. 5 was appointed as LDC by the office order dated
05th October, 2002. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were appointed by
order no. 21 dated 23.10.2006. The learned Writ Court noticed that
the petitioners have based their claim on the basis of the order
dated 17.12.2007 passed in CWJC No. 13577 of 2006. It was
argued by Shri Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that in
the said case also, the petitioners were appointed after the post of
LDC and UDC were demerged but this Court directed to grant
them pay scale 4000-6000. On behalf of the State, the attention of
the learned Writ Court was drawn towards clause 5(ii) of
Resolution dated 20th December, 2000 and a distinction was
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
42/60
sought to be made from that of the case of the petitioners in
Manish Kumar Pathak and that of Ganesh Singh (supra). A
perusal of the order of the learned Writ Court in Avinash Kumar
Chakerworty (supra) case nowhere shows that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra) rendered on 19.02.2014 was
brought to the notice of learned Writ Court. Still, it appears that the
learned Writ Court took a view that the petitioners in Avinash
Kumar Chakerworty (C.W.J.C. No. 1498 of 2011) would not get
the benefit of parity or equality with the petitioners of C.W.J.C.
No. 13577 of 2006.
Judgment in Ganesh Singh – distinguished
58. As regards the judgment of this Court in the case of
some of the employees in whose favour order as contained in
Annexure ‘5’ to the said writ application was passed granting them
pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, learned Writ Court in Avinash
Kumar Chakerworty took a view that the petitioners of Annexure
‘5’ were admittedly retrenched employees and subsequently as per
policy decision, they were given the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-.
The writ petition was also dismissed on the ground that the
petitioner nos. 1 , 4 and 5 were appointed in the year 2002 itself in
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
43/60
the pay scale of 3050-4590 but they had approached this Court
after lapse of about nine years.
59. This Court finds that the judgment of the learned
Writ Court in Ganesh Singh (supra) has no application in the
present case. In the said case the petitioners had participated in
limited examination in terms of a scheme approved by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The said judgment has been reported in (1998) 8
SCC 218. The petitioners continued to be governed by
Advertisement No. 1/2000 dated 19.04.2000. It was held that the
Resolution dated 20.12.2000 had no application in the said case.
Division Bench Judgment in Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
61. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned writ
court in Avinash Kumar Chakerworty (supra), the petitioners
moved in a Letters Patent Appeal bearing No.167 of 2016. The
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court upturned the judgment of
the learned writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 1498 of 2011 and allowed
the appeal. What prevailed upon the Hon’ble Division Bench in
LPA No.167 of 2016 are being reproduced as under:-
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
we find that all the petitioners in the writ petition and the
employees, who were appointed by virtue of the order passed
in CWJC No.17566 of 2006 and the employees, who were
originally working in the non-formal education scheme and
who were given fresh appointment vide Annexure-4 dated
23rd July, 2005 and Annexure-5 dated 20th July, 2006, are all
working in the same office, namely the Collectorate at Siwan,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
44/60all are discharging identical function, but except the five
petitioners, the other employees indicated herein above are
getting higher pay in the scale of Rs.4000/- – Rs.6000/-. The
only reason for giving the benefits are that they were
appointed after the circular was issued on 20th December,
2000. However, the fact remains that even in the case of
employees, who were petitioners in CWJC No.13755 of
2006, they were appointed after 20th December, 2000, but
they have been granted the benefit in the higher scale of pay
of Rs.4000/- – Rs.6000/- on account of the fact that the
process of appointment initiated in the year 1999 was
delayed because of the procedural delay. In the case of the
petitioners also, as is evident from the records, their
appointment process was also initiated in the year 1999-2000
and in the case of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Sinha, he filed
the writ petition claiming compassionate appointment way
back in the year 1999 in CWJC No.9934 of 1999 and it was
only after the order was passed in the aforesaid MJC in the
year 2005 that the appointment order was issued. That being
so, we see no much difference between the employees, who
were petitioners in CWJC No.13577 of 2006 and the present
petitioners. Even if for the sake of argument it may be
assumed that the petitioners and the employees, who were
petitioners in CWJC No.13577 of 2006 form two different
categories, there is no justification in the matter of
discrimination between the present petitioners and the
retrenched employees who were working in the non formal
education scheme. It is clear that the nonformal education
scheme came to an end and large number of Class-III and
Class IV employees was retrenched and thereafter in the year
2005 and 2006 as is evident from Annexures 4 and 5, they
were re-appointed as a fresh appointee in the year 2005 and
2006, that is much after 20th December, 2000 and in their
case, they have been granted the higher pay scale of
Rs.4000/- – Rs.6000/-. If that be so, there is a discrimination
in the matter of granting similar benefit to the petitioners
when more than 300 employees have been granted such
benefit of higher pay scale in the grade of Rs.4000/- –
Rs.6000/- even after they were appointed in the year 2005
and 2006, there is no reason as to why similar benefits should
be denied to the petitioners when the petitioners are also
doing similar work and were appointed after 20th December,
2000. To that effect, there is discrimination in the matter and
the petitioners are entitled to equal treatment. That apart, the
petitioners are working in the Collectorate at Siwan and
many employees identically situated, like the petitioners,
who were appointed after 20th December, 2000, as is
indicated hereinabove, are being granted pay in the scale of
Rs.4000/- – Rs.6000/- and if that be the factual position, there
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
45/60is no reason why a similar benefit should not be extended to
the petitioners.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed, the
order impugned dated 29.10.2015 passed in CWJC No.1498
of 2011 is quashed. The said writ petition is allowed and the
petitioners are directed to be paid the benefit in the scale of
pay Rs.4000/- – Rs.6000/- retrospectively with effect from
the date of appointment. However, arrears of the petitioner
are only to be granted with effect from the date they filed the
writ petition before the High Court, i.e. with effect from
21.01.2011.”
62. It is evident from a bare reading of the order of the
Hon’ble Division Bench in Avinash Kumar Chakerworty
(supra) that the judgment of another Division Bench in the case of
Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra) was not brought to the
notice of the subsequent Division Bench deciding the same and
one issue.
Opinion of the Court
63. Upon careful consideration of the entire submissions
and the materials including the judicial pronouncements on the
subject, we find at the first instance that even though the writ
petitioners have given an impression that the cases are to be
considered by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal
work”, the real issue falling for consideration in these cases is as
to whether the petitioners could have been appointed on the post of
‘Clerical Cadre’ which was the unified post existing prior to the
demerger with effect from 20.12.2000. Some of the petitioners
have contended that their names were under consideration before
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
46/60
the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee prior to
the date of demerger and that would confer a right upon them to
claim their appointment on the post of Clerk and the pay-scale as
existing prior to the demerger.
64. We are afraid that such contentions cannot be
allowed by any stretch of imagination. In this regard we are of the
opinion that a mere pendency of the applications of persons
seeking appointment on compassionate ground or the
recommendation by the establishment committee would not be a
relevant date for taking into account the policy of the government
with regard to the post on which the appointment could have been
made after demerger and scale of pay would have been allowed to
an appointee on the post after demerger irrespective of the source
of appointment. So far as the policy on compassionate
appointment is concerned, we have taken note of paragraph ‘8’ of
the guidelines as contained in the Memo No. 3/C 2-2067/90 ka
13293/Patna-15 dated 5.10.1991. There is no deviation from the
policy on the appointment on compassionate ground. The post of
LDC came into being on demerger of the post of Clerk and the
pay scale attached to the same is Rs. 3050-4590/-.
65. We have already noticed that in the resolutions/letter
dated 20th December, 2000 the government had already taken a
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
47/60
decision that after this date the vacancies existing in the post prior
to demerger shall be taken as the vacancies available in the junior
most category/lowest category as identified in the demerger
notification.
66. In this case, the demerger notification has clearly
brought in existence, the junior most category of post as LDC in
the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590, therefore, all the vacancies which
would have been available in the post of Assistant (prior to
demerger) would be taken as the vacancies available in the post of
LDC in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. Once this decision was
taken and notified, the petitioners whose names were under
consideration for appointment on compassionate ground prior to
demerger could not have been appointed on the post of Assistant.
The only post which was available for their appointment was the
post of LDC in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. In fact we have
noticed that in C.W.J.C. No.23831 of 2018, the petitioner himself
claims that the District Compassionate Appointment Committee
recommended his name for appointment on 17.01.2001 and he was
appointed as LDC in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The petitioner
accepted the same and continued to work without any demur or
protest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
48/60
67. In CWJC No.2804 of 2018 in fact the petitioners
were appointed on 04.01.2001 but they were given the pay scale of
Rs.4000-6000/- which was immediately modified by issuing a
corrigendum dated 12.04.2001. The petitioners were allowed the
pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 which they accepted without any
protest. The petitioners in other writ petitions have been appointed
much thereafter and they have also accepted the post with the pay
scale attached to the same.
68. In the kind of clarity which had already come by
virtue of the specific stipulation in clause 5(i) of the resolution no.
8826 dated 20.12.2000, the petitioners cannot be allowed to
contend that they were entitled to appointment on a post which did
not exist after demerger. Sub-clause (ii) of clause 5 of the said
resolution made it very clear that any selection process which may
be going on or has been completed for filling up the vacancies in
the erstwhile post be cancelled. The learned writ court in CWJC
No.10441 of 2010 (Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam) has rightly
appreciated the effect of non-cancellation of the advertisement
published in the year 1998 for recruitment through BPSC in earlier
clerical cadre post in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. In fact in
CWJC No.13577 of 2006 also the learned writ court granted the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
49/60
benefit of the pay scale to the direct recruits of the said writ
application after observing as under:-
“Even in Clause(5) of the instructions contained in letter dated
20th December,2000, Annexure–5 if the authorities were not
inclined to appoint the petitioners in the revised scale of the
advertised post they ought to have cancelled the advertisement
and the selection process but once they have not chosen to
cancel the advertisement and the selection process then they
have to appoint the petitioners in the corresponding revised
scale of the post advertised in Annexure-1.”
69. It is for the aforesaid reason that in the Letters
Patent Appeal No.100 of 2012, the Hon’ble Division Bench
observed that these direct recruits constituted one isolated group
and the appellants cannot have legitimate claim of parity of pay
with those direct recruits. We find that the views expressed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench in Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam is the
correct view.
70. Having said so, we find that in course of hearing of
the Letters Patent Appeal in case of Avinash Kumar
Chakerworty, neither learned counsel for the appellants nor
learned counsel for the State brought the judgment in the case of
Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam to the notice of the Bench. We
have found from the judgment in the case of Avinash Kumar
Chakerworty that clause 5(i) and (ii) of the Resolution dated 20 th
December, 2000 were also not specifically brought to the notice of
the Hon’ble Division Bench.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
50/60
71. The circumstances under which the petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No.13577 of 2006 were granted reliefs were completely
different and distinct and this aspect of the matter could have been
gone into by the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the case of
Avinash Kumar Chakerworty, if prior judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench in the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam
could have been brought to the notice of the court hearing Avinash
Kumar Chakerworty‘s case.
72. In fact while hearing these matters one of us
( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) pointed out to Mr. Kishore Kumar
Thakur, learned counsel leading the argument in C.W.J.C.
No.23831 of 2018 that he was the lawyer representing the
petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1948 of 2020 ( Shankar Dayal Singh
& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in which the judgment of
this Court in Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam was not cited. Same
was the situation with the other writ applications on which reliance
was placed in C.W.J.C. No. 17of 2023 and orders were obtained.
73. C.W.J.C. No.15978/2010 (Sanjiv Kapoor and Ors.
Vs. the State of Bihar) & ors.) and 19 other analogous matters on
which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioners, came
for consideration before his Lordship on 20.02.2023. But even at
this stage this Court was not informed about the judgment of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
51/60
Hon’ble Division Bench in case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam.
What is disturbing is that not only learned counsel for the
petitioners in those writ applications did not inform this Court
about the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of
Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam (supra), even the battery of law
officers of the State some of whom were the Government Pleaders,
Government Advocate and the Additional Advocate General did
not point out the said judgment, as a result of this kind of half
hearted assistance, the order dated 20.02.2023 was obtained from
the writ court in Sanjiv Kapoor‘s case and other 19 writ petitions.
In facts, the order dated 20.02.2023 contains the stand of the State
which is being re-produced hereunder:-
“Today, learned counsel for the State were called upon by
this Court to say as to whether there is any difference in the
case of these petitioners with that of the petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 17 of 2023. Learned counsel for the State do
not dispute that all these writ applications are similarly
situated with C.W.J.C. No. 17 of 2023 and that they would
have no objection if these writ applications are also disposed
of in similar terms.”
74. Even learned counsel for the State despite being
specific query made by the writ court did not point out the earlier
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench. It has been found that
even though Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate was
representing the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 7988 of 2020 (Abhay
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar) and in the said case, the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
52/60
Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 06.04.2021
noticed two conflicting views taken by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in L.P.A. No.100 of 2012 (Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam) and
LPA No.167 of 2016 (Avinash Kumar Chakerworty) and held
that the subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of
Avinash Kumar Chakerworty could not notice the earlier
Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra
Khanam, the same learned Advocate Mr. Thakur did not point out
this to the learned writ court presided by one of us (Rajeev Ranjan
Prasad, J.) in C.W.J.C. No.3658 of 2016 (Pawan Kumar Sah &
Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors) and other analogous cases
which were heard and decided on 03.04.2023. Once again the
judgment in Manish Kumar Pathak‘s case was cited. The said
writ application was, however, dismissed after finding that the case
of the petitioners would not be covered by the judgment of this
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13577 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No.7730 of
2009.
The case of Pawan Kumar Sah (supra)
75. In this case, the petitioners had appeared pursuant to
an advertisement bearing no. 01 of 2003 which was published by
the BPSC for filling up Class 3 post through limited competitive
examination for the Class 4 employees. 125 posts were advertised
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
53/60
and the advertisement clearly provided that these appointments to
be made on the post of LDC in the scale of 3050-4590. The
petitioners appeared in the limited competitive examination
pursuant to the said advertisement, they were appointed on the said
post with the pay scale. The petitioners, however, claimed that by
virtue of the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13577 of 2006
and C.W.J.C. No. 7730 of 2009, they were entitled to the pay scale
of Rs.4000-6000. Thus, they raised the issue of parity in the pay
scale after about twelve years. Their representations made before
the District Magistrate was rejected. In the said case, the learned
Writ Court presided over by one of us (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)
distinguished the case of the petitioners from that of C.W.J.C. No.
13577 of 2006 and C.W.J.C. No. 7730 of 2009. Paragraph ’20’ and
’21’ of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Sah and others
are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“20. To this Court, it appears that the case of the petitioners
would not be covered under Note-2 for the simple reason
that the facts which are required to be there for applicability
of Note-2 are not present in the case of the petitioners. It is
not their case that the petitioners were at any point of time
drawing more pay than the another Government servant
junior to him in the same cadre.
21. Again, it is not their case that by virtue of revision of
pay, their pay band got fixed at a stage lower than that of
stage of junior. The facts of the case are rather converse. In
this case, the direct recruits who joined the service after the
petitioners were given higher pay by virtue of the judgments
of this Court in CWJC No. 13577 of 2006 and CWJC No.
7730 of 2009. The reason being that in their case the
selection process had started in the year 1998 itself which
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
54/60was prior to de-merger whereas in the case of the
petitioners, they participated in the selection process by
virtue of Advertisement No. 01 of 2003 after the de-merger
of the post of LDC and UDC.”
In ultimate analysis, all those writ applications were dismissed.
76. In course of argument, since reliance has also been
placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 3438 of 2019) and Binit Kumar (supra) and
other analogous matters, it would be apt to take a glance over the
said judgments as well.
77. In the case of Satish Kumar (supra) a learned Single
Judge of this Curt held in it’s order dated 05.10.2020. It has been
held inter-alia as under:-
“…………..The petitioners of CWJC No.10441 of 2010,
CWJC No.10449 of 2010 and CWJC No.18070 of 2010
filed LPA No.100 of 2012 and LPA No.188 of 2012. A
Division Bench of this Court also held that such persons
who are like of the petitioner are not entitled to get the
scale of Rs.4000-6000 and they were appointed in Lower
Division Clerk after demerger of the cadre on
20.12.2000, but this Division Bench judgment has not
been considered in the later Division Bench judgment of
this Court in LPA No.167 of 2016, therefore, the later
judgment of the Division Bench is per incuriam…….”
78. The petitioners in case of Binit Kumar had moved this
Court against the order of their reversion from the post of lower
division accounts clerk /lower division clerk (accounts) in the pay
scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 2012.2000. Some of the
petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Additional Secretary,
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
55/60
Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar by which it was
decided that all appointments made against the post of Accounts
Clerk, Lower Division Clerk (Accounts) and the Junior Accounts
Clerk in the grade pay of Rs.2400/- on compassionate ground
would be re-designated as the LDC with effect from their initial
appointment in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and the excess
salary drawn by them as clerks in the accounts cadre would be
recovered. The petitioners were aggrieved by the Memo No. 5483
dated 11.07.2016 (Paragraph ‘7’) whereby the Finance Department
had tried to create a class in between those appointed through
direct recruitment and those appointed on compassionate grounds
to hold that the resolution no. 3111 dated 25.03.2015 does not
cover the case of compassionate appointees. All the writ
petitioners were appointed after 20.12.2000 and they were given
the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 and their scales were upgraded
subsequently. The learned Writ Court found that this issue was
raised for the first time in CWJC No. 12124 of 2011 (Ram Janam
Jha and others) when a grievance raised on wrong fixation of the
pay scale to the accounts clerks, the respondent was put to
challenge before this Court. The learned Writ Court in the said
case quashed the order of the Finance Department dated
03.08.2010 and held that the petitioners of the said case would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
56/60
treated as Accounts clerks throughout with all consequential
benefits and the pay scale so granted to them are not refixed nor
recovery permissible and the petitioners would be entitled to be
paid on the basis of their designation as against accounts clerk and
their retiral dues to be calculated accordingly.
79. In Letters Patent Appeal the Hon’ble Division Bench
took note of the Finance Department’s resolution no. 3111 dated
25.03.2015 and judgment and order passed on 24.08.2016 held that
since the State Government itself has decided to do away with the
distinction between the Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior
Accounts Clerk and since a decision was taken to grant the pay
scale meant for senior accounts clerk to all the accounts clerks,
whether appointed on compassionate ground or otherwise, all of
them would be entitled to the same pay scale. A challenge to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP No. 2982 of 2017 was dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order passed on
10.02.2017. While the Letters Patent Appeal of the State was
pending consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the
Finance Department has tried to pre-empt the decision vide
Resolution no. 5483 dated 11.07.2016 to hold that the benefit of
Resolution No. 3111 dated 25.03.2015 would not cover the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
57/60
compassionate appointees. The learned Writ Court went into the
resolution of the Finance Department contained in Letter No. 6389
dated 28.09.1999 which classified the appointees in the accounts
clerical cadre in two categories. While category no. 1 consists
appointment made in between 01.05.1980 to 27.09.1999, the other
relates to appointment made after 28.09.1999. It was held that
since the appointment of the petitioners were made after
28.09.1999, hence the decision of the State Government as
contained in Resolution dated 25.03.2015 at the paragraph 5(ii)
would be relevant for the issue and that provides for all
appointments made in different departments in the accounts
clerical cadre against the post of Junior Accounts Clerks/Lower
Division Accounts Clerk/Lower Division Clerk (Accounts)would
be designated as Junior Accounts Clerk and would be entitled to a
pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 with effect from 31.12.2005 and to the
pay scale in pay band with grade pay 2400/- w.e.f 01.01.2006. It
further pointed out that on promotion to post of Senior Accounts
Clerk they would be entitled to pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 and in
pay band 1 with grade pay 2800/- w.e.f. 11.01.2006 respectively.
80. It is in the aforementioned background, the learned writ
court considered the issue as to whether or not the compassionate
appointees in the Accounts Clerk Cadre would be entitled to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
58/60
scale admissible under Resolution dated 25.03.2015 of the State
Government. The Court found that the issue has been settled in the
case of Ram Janam Jha (LPA No. 206 of 2015). The judgment of
the learned writ court in the case of Binit Kumar (supra) came to
be challenged in LPA No. 1702 of 2017 before the Hon’ble
Division Bench. The said LPA stood dismissed. It appears that a
challenge to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court failed. This fact finds
mentioned in Memo No. 6012 dated 10.07.2023 issued under the
signature of the under Secretary to the Government in the
Department of Finance which is available with the compilation
provided by Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate.
81. We have noticed on going through the judgment in the case
of Binit Kumar and Others that the same has no application in the
facts and issues involved in the present set of writ applications.
82. In ultimate analysis, we proceed to answer the question
referred to the larger Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 23831 of 2018 as under:-
(i) Any person appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk
after demerger in the scale of Rs.3050-Rs.4590/- cannot claim and
would not be entitled to a higher pay scale of Rs.4000-Rs.6000/-. This
Court has already noticed that the judgment of the Division Bench in
the case of Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam (Supra) was not brought to
the notice of the subsequent Division Bench in the case of Avinash
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
59/60Kumar Chakerworty) (supra). It is further held that the principle of
“Equal pay for equal work” has no application in these matters.
83. In C.W.J.C. No. 2804 of 2020, three questions have been
referred to the larger Bench, we answer the same in corresponding
terms as under:-
(i) the views expressed by the Hon’ble Division in the case of
Smt. Mosarrat Arra Khanam and others (supra) is the correct view.
We do not approve the views expressed by the Division Bench in the
case of Avinash Kumar Chakerworty and others. The case of Binit
Kumar and Others (supra) deals with altogether a different issue
which is not falling for consideration in the present writ applications.
(ii) After Finance Department’s Resolution dated 20.12.2000, a
demerger of the post of Assistant resulted in existence of three different
posts i.e. (I) Lower Division Clerk (ii) Upper Division Clerk and (iii)
Assistant. In terms of clause (5)(i) of the Resolution Dated 20.12.2000
the vacancies existing in the post of Assistant (prior to demerger) would
be taken as the vacancies existing in the post of Lower Division Clerk
which is the junior most/ lowest post available in that category. Thus,
the petitioners who have been appointed after 20.12.2000 could have
been appointed only against the post of Lower Division Clerk in the pay
scale of Rs.3050/- Rs.4590/-.
(iii) All the appointees on the post of Lower Division Clerk after
20.12.2000, irrespective of their source of appointment are entitled to
the pay scale of Rs.3050 – Rs. 4590/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.23831 of 2018 dt. 27 -08-2025
60/60
84. Since we have heard the writ petitions with the consent of
the parties for final disposal, these writ applications being devoid of
merit are being dismissed. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
85. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Pawan/Avin-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 28.07.2025 Uploading Date 27.08.2025 Transmission Date
[ad_2]
Source link