IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
Anand Deo Sharma, Son of Janeshwar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2914 of 2020
Decided on : 20-02-2023
pay protection - Fundamental Rule 22(I)(A)(i) - 13/26/82-Estt. (P-1) - 16750-20550, 12850-17550 - The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pay protection and stepping up his pay in line with the principle of equal pay. The court also imposed a 25% cut in the emoluments for the petitioner's late application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pay protection after realizing that his juniors were receiving higher pay due to his failure to exercise the option under Fundamental Rule 22(I)(A)(i) at the time of his promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to pay protection and stepping up his pay, but imposed a 25% cut in the emoluments for his late application.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to pay protection and stepping up his pay in line with the principle of equal pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pay protection and stepping up his pay in line with the principle of equal pay, but imposed a 25% cut in the emoluments for his late application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to pay protection and stepping up his pay, with a 25% cut in the emoluments for his late application.
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Satyabir Bharti for the High Court and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai for the Accountant General. The State is represented by Mr. Suman Kumar Jha.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in letter no. 5816 dated 03.05.2019 whereby his representation for pay protection has not been accepted only for the reason of delay.
3. The petitioner claims that his pay is required to be stepped-up in consonance with with principle of equal pay and pay protection to an employee who cannot be paid less than his juniors.
4. It appears that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect from 14.11.2003. At that time, he had not exercised his option under FR 22(I)(A)(i), which Rule is being extracted herein below:-
2. The Ministries of Agriculture and Cooperation, etc., are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned for guidance and strict compliance.”
5. The petitioner has been getting the pay of 16,350/-in the scale of 12850-17550. As such, after his promotion to the post of A.D.J., his pay was fixed at 17150/-in the scale of 16750-20500 with next DNI 1/11 each year. There does not remain any dispute with this. The dispute arose only when the petitioner realized after his retirement that his juniors namely Ajit Kumar Sinha and Manmohan Choudhary were granted promotion to the post of ADJ with effect from 13.02.2004 and 17.02.2004 respectively who, after their promotion, were having paid Rs. 17,550/-in the scale of 16750-20550 with the next DNI 01/02 each year as per the provision.
6. The Accountant General’s Office reported that at the time of their promotion, the aforesaid two Officers were getting their pay of 16,750/-in the scale of 12850-17550 immediately before their promotion. It was for this reason that on their promotion, their pay was fixed at Rs. 17,550/-, unlike in the case of the petitioner whose pay was fixed at Rs. 17,150/-. This was only for the reason of the petitioner not having exercised his option under fundamental rule 22(I)(A)(i).
7. It is the case of the petitioner that such option had to be made available to
Entitlement to pay protection and stepping up pay in line with the principle of equal pay.
Denial of pay fixation option to a senior employee in favor of a junior constitutes discrimination, violating principles of equality under Article 14.
Delay in seeking judicial relief can bar claims, especially when the claimant has accepted the status quo for an extended period.
Pay protection is a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 300A, and denial based on procedural delays is impermissible.
Stepping up of senior's pay allowed when anomaly arises from junior's FR 22(I)(a)(1) option, despite pre-2006 ACP, in same cadre with identical scales.
The proper interpretation of pay fixation rules under FR 22-B and associated rulings dictates that prior option exercised by a government servant must be adhered to, ensuring benefits are computed co....
While Implementing scheme, difference in pay scales on account of grant of financial upgradation under old ACP Scheme (15.12.1998) under this scheme within same cadre shall not be construed as an ano....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.