The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee cannot be lightly interfered with or replaced by an executive notification, and creating two kinds of pay-scales for the same kind of employees based on their date of appointment violates the principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The two writ applications have raised common question of law arising from similar bundle of facts and since the Court was addressed in both the matters together, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The communication contained in Annexure-14 dated 7.11.2012, issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Finance, is under challenge in the present writ applications. By virtue of this order the persons including these petitioners were extended the benefit of revision in salary as per recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Commission w.e.f. 1.1.2006, but now after issuance of Annexure-14, not only the pay-scale or salary is being reduced but even order of recovery in two instalments has been made.

3. The alternative relief is to revise the pay-scale of the petitioners notionally w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in the pay-scale of Rs.7450-11500/- which is the correct corresponding pay-scale for the pre-revised pay-scale and the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006.

4. After the Union of India accepted the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Commission and implemented it, the employees of the State of Bihar also raised similar demands and an agreement was reached between the employees’ Union and the State of Bihar to extend the benefit of Central Pay-Scale on similar pattern. A Pay Revision Committee for the State was put in place. Based on its interim report submitted to the State of Bihar and it being duly accepted, Assistants working in the Bihar Secretariat or holders of equivalent posts were given the benefit of Central Pay-Scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The replacement scale was worked out by multiplying the existing basic scale by a factor of 1.86, meaning thereby that Rs.5500 x 1.86 = Rs.10230 + Grade Pay 4200, which added up to Rs.14430/-. This became the entitlement of Assistants as per Schedule-I of the Notification.

5. For the new entrants the entry pay was fixed as Rs. 13,500/- as per Schedule- II, and in turn the Assistants of the Patna High Court started getting their salary in the new scale from the month of March, 2009 and new pay band by calculating their salary as on 1.1.2006 by multiplying with the factor of 1.86 as explained above.

6. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, received large number of references on the anomalies of fixation of some of these pay-scales and vide its letter No. 1/1/2008-1 C dated 13.11.2009 decided that posts which were in pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 will be given Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- instead of Rs.4200/-. The pay band corresponding to Rs.7450-11500/- was fixed on Rs.9300-34800/-.

7. Vide decision dated 21.1.2010, the Government of Bihar accepted the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- for the Assistants, presently Assistants of Secretariat and its equivalent post across the board.

8. The problem arose when the Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, started rethinking if not overreaching the recommendation already notified. They started making a distinction between the Assistants appointed on or after 1.1.2006 and those before. The post 1.1.2006 appointees were extended entry pay of Rs.17140/- and the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. The ground of the entry pay worked out to 40% of the higher slab of Rs.11500 in the replacement scale of Rs.7450-11500/-. Therefore, the salary was increased from Rs.13500/- to Rs.17140/-. This upgraded benefit of pay-scale was not extended to the Assistants/Personal Assistants appointed before 1.1.2006. Their salary was fixed on 1.1.2006 by treating the existing basic pay to be Rs.5500/- and not Rs.7450/- because of the salary of the Assistants appointed before 1.1.2006 added up to Rs.14,430/-. This has created an anomalous situation because if the scale was upgraded and benefit was to accrue, it should have been extended across the board and a different class amongst class ought not to have been created by giving higher benefit to Assistants appointed after 1.1.2006 and those appointed pre 1.1.2006.

9. This, according to the petitio