The main legal point established in the judgment is the autonomy of Zila Parishad in implementing pay scale revisions and the State Government's obligation to meet the financial responsibility for Zila Parishad employees as recommended by the Finance Commission.

JYOTI SARAN, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be a registered association of the employees of Zila Parishad and espousing the cause of these very employees, through its General Secretary, on being so authorized, has moved this Court, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:

(i) For quashing of letter No. 4345 dated 3.5.2017 issued by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department whereby the earlier Letter No. 1129 dated 28.2.2013 has been deleted on non-est ground and in consequence thereof benefits of 4th, 5th and 6th pay-scale have been stopped to the employees of Zila Parishad.

(ii) For a direction upon the respondents to treat the members of Zila Parishad at par with State Government employees and grant benefits so far as pay-scale is concerned in view of option exercised by them in terms of rule 5 of Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad (Service Conditions) Rules, 1964.

(iii) Any other order/orders for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. While Mr. P.K.Shahi, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate on record has appeared for the petitioner, the respondent State including its authorities are represented through Mr. K.P.Gupta, learned GP-10.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the affidavits filed on their behalf, in my opinion, the only issue which falls for consideration before this Court is whether or not the Zila Parishad is empowered to take a decision to implement revision of pay scales in tune with the resolution so passed by the State Government to the extent similar revisions is allowed to its employees and whether before any such decision is taken by the Zila Parishad, it would require a prior approval and consent of the State.

4. In other words, despite autonomy granted to the local bodies at the grass root level of democracy under the 73rd amendment and even though these local bodies are substantially dependent on the State Government for financial assistance and even though 73rd constitutional amendment vide Articles 243H and 243I amply delineates rights and responsibility of the Panchayats on its economic front as well as a review of the financial position of the Panchayats by the Finance Commission constituted thereunder, yet the State does not intend to grant autonomy of decision to the Zila Parishad and which is the foundation for the contest raised herein.

5. It is not in dispute rather admitted that whereas the State has implemented even the 7th pay revision recommendations with effect from 1.1.2016 for its employees, the employees of the Zila Parishad have not been permitted to rise above the 4th pay revision which was implemented in the State more than three decades ago, with effect from 1.4.1981 and a decision taken to allow the 5th and 6th pay revision, implemented in the State in so far as the State Government employees are concerned, with effect from 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2006, has been withdrawn vide order impugned herein simply because, according to the Department of Panchayati Raj, the Director had exceeded his jurisdiction to allow such revision which was taken without prior approval of the State Government.

6. While exhaustive arguments have been advanced by Mr. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, with reference to the umpteen documents enclosed in the proceedings and well contested by Mr. Gupta in reference to the stand of the department in the counter affidavit but the crux of the matter is whether at all the Zila Parishad is required to take prior approval before implementing a pay revision for its employees which already has been implemented by the State Government for its own employees and in case such a decision has been taken whether by the impugned order, which is not an order of the State Government, the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, could have recalled the same. That even when these issues have earlier engaged this Court and the orders so pa