SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ., Partha Sarthy, J.
Ajit Kumar Singh, son of Late Bhim Singh - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.960 of 2024
Decided On : 24-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Mr. Animesh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Mr. Amritya Raj, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. Anuradha Singh, Standing Counsel 21, Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, AC to SC-21, Mr. Shatabdi Sinha, AC to SC-21

Judicial Officers are entitled to the same increment dates as other government employees, and modifications that discriminate against them are unjustified.

Headnote:(A) National Judicial Pay Commission - Recommendations regarding increments for Judicial Officers - The State Government's resolution applicable to all government employees was modified for Judicial Officers, leading to a revision of increment dates and recovery orders. The court found this modification discriminatory and set it aside. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Judicial Independence - The court emphasized that the independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and Judicial Officers should not be prejudiced by executive decisions. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, representing the Bihar Judicial Services Association, challenged the modification of increment dates for Judicial Officers, which deviated from the resolution applicable to all government employees.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that Judicial Officers are entitled to the same increment dates as other government employees, and any recovery made should be refunded.

Issues: The main issue was whether the modification of increment dates for Judicial Officers was discriminatory compared to other government employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the modification was unjustified and violated the principle of equal treatment for Judicial Officers, reaffirming that benefits conferred by the State should not be altered without valid justification.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.

The petitioner, an Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State’s Judicial Service, has approached this Court in his personal capacity and as the Secretary of the Bihar Judicial Services Association; ventilating the cause of the Judicial Officers in the State of Bihar.

2. The issue raised is with respect to the second National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC) and the grant of increments, which was done as per the resolution of the Government of Bihar applicable to all government employees, including the Judicial Officers. When the recommendations of the second NJPC was introduced, the resolution applicable to the government employees were made applicable to the Judicial Officers also. The specific issue dealt with in the writ petition is the applicability of the date of increment as available to the government employees. The same was modified, exclusively for the Judicial Officers, which resulted in the earlier fixation of date of increment being revised and refund being ordered from them.

3. The Government has filed a counter affidavit asserting its stand that the modification was in accordance with the recommendation of the second NJPC; which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also specifically directed to be implemented, as is evident from All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others; (2024) 1 SCC 546.

4. We heard Shri Saket Tiwary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anuradha Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 21 for the Government.

5. Admittedly, the Government of Bihar had, by Resolution No. 3590 dated 24.05.2017 (Annexure-P2), revised the pay structure of State Government employees with effect from 01.01.2016. As far as the payment of increments are concerned, by Clause 9 the following was provided:-

    “9. Date of next increment in revised pay structure-

    (1) There shall be two dates for grant of increment namely, 1st January and 1st July of every year, instead of existing date of 1st July:

    Provided that an employee shall be entitled to only one annual increment either on 1st January or 1st July depending on the date of his appointment, promotion or grant of financial upgradation.

    (2) The increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) during the period between the 2nd day of January and 1st day of July (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of January and the increment in respect of an employee appointed or promoted or granted financial upgradation including upgradation under MACPS during the period between the 2nd day of July and 1st day of January (both inclusive) shall be granted on 1st day of July.”

6. As illustration, it has also been provided that a person appointed/promoted/upgraded under MACPS between 02.07.2016 and 01.01.2017 would get the first increment on 01.07.2017. Similarly, a person appointed/promoted/granted MACPS between 02.01.2016 and 01.07.2016 would draw the next increment on the 1st day of January, 2017. Hence, an employee with the State Government was entitled to the annual increment either on 1st of January or 1st of July depending on the date of promotion/appointment/financial upgradation. Then the increment will be on an annual basis; i.e. the 1st of January or July on which the increment was granted in the earlier year.

7. Implementation of second NJPC (Annexure-P1) was brought out by the State Government wherein Clause 4 (Chh) provided as under:-

    “4(Chh) The date of annual salary increment will be determined in the light of the resolution no. 3590 dated 24.05.2017 of the State Government.”

8. The Judicial Officers were thus entitled to the annual increment either on the 1st of January or the 1st of July, as illustrated above. In the subsequent year from the year of promotion/appointment/financial upgradation, the State of Bihar also fixed the date of increment for the existing Officers along with the other benefits provided und

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top