IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Pankaj Kumar, Son of Late Kamal Prasad Singh and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Dept. of Education and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3520 of 2021
Decided On : 26-11-2024
Service Law – Fixation of Pay Scale – Petitioners opted under Clause-5 of the Gazette Notification published on 24th May 2017 for revision of pay at higher grade of pay on promotion – However, they have been denied the option – It is needless to say that a Gazette Notification being a delegated Legislation has force of statute – When an incumbent was permitted to opt for revision of pay at higher grade of pay or promotion, within a certain period of time and that promotion occurs in respect of petitioners, there is no reason to deny the petitioners option on the ground of a subsequent Finance Department Notification – Writ petition allowed and the impugned order set aside – Petitioners are entitled to submit their option on the basis of Clause-5 of the Extraordinary Gazette Notification dated 24 th May, 2017, and in such case, the respondent shall decide their higher scale of pay, within two months. (Paras 10 & 14)
JUDGMENT :
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
The issue involved in the instant writ petition relates to fixation of pay-scale of the petitioners on the basis of 7th Pay Commission. The dispute between the petitioners and the State respondents is as to whether the pay fixation under 7th Pay Commission would be notionally fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2017 or the petitioners have any opportunity to submit their option for fixation of pay-scale under 7th Pay Commission, on the basis of their scale of pay on promotion which they received on 21.02.2017.
2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners challenged the order passed by the District Education Officer, Gaya on 25th/ 26th November, 2020. The relevant portion of impugned order runs thus:-
^^lUnfHkZr osru fu/kkZj.k dh leh{kk ls Li"V gqvk fd Jh vuqi dqekj] Jh iadt dqekj ,oa Jh vkuUn euksgj ds }kjk iwoZ in ;Fkk eSfVªd izf'kf{kr@Lukrd izf'kf{kr in fjDr djus vkSj Lukrd izf'kf{kr@iz/kkuk/;kid ds izksUur in ij ;ksxnku ds QyLo:i foRr foHkkx] fcgkj ds ladYi la[;k 630 fnukad 21-01-2020 }kjk izHkkoh "k"Ve~ osrueku vFkkZr~ viqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa vxyh osru o`f) dh frfFk 01-07-2017 ls izksUur osreueku esa osru fu/kkZj.k dk fodYi p;u dj blesa osru fu/kkZj.k djk;k x;k vkSj blds ckn fnukad 01-01-2016 ls izHkkoh iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa fnukad 01-07-2017 ls osru fu/kkZj.k djk;k x;kA
bl izdkj mDr rhuksa ds }kjk ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls izksUur in dk osru fu/kkZj.k djk, tkus ds ckn fnukad 01-01-2016 vFkok vxyh osru o`f) dh frfFk 01-07-2016 vFkok izksUufr dh frfFk ds LFkku ij lIre~ osru iqujh{k.k esa fnukad 01-07-2017 ls osru fu/kkZj.k dk fodYi p;u fu;e ds iw.kZr% izfrdwy gSA
Jh eukst dqekj ds }kjk iwoZ in ;Fkk eSfVªd izf'kf{kr in fjDr djus vkSj Lukrd izf'kf{kr ds izksUur in ij fnukad 22-02-2017 dks ;ksxnku ds QyLo:i fnukad 01-01-2016 ds ckn viqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa 01-07-2016 ,oa iqu% fnukad 01-07-2017 dks okf"kZd osru o`f) izkIr djrs gq, bl frfFk ls izksUur in ,oa iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa osru fu/kkZj.k dk fodYi p;u dj ,d lkFk fnukad 23-10-2017 dks osru fu/kkZj.k djk;k x;kA
buds }kjk fu;ekuqlkj fnukad 01-01- 2016 ds ckn vxyh osru o`f) 01-07-2016 vFkok izksUufr dh frfFk ;Fkk iwoZ in fjDr djus ¼viqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa nwljh okf"kZd osru o`f) dh frfFk 01-07-2017 ds iwoZ½ ds vk/kkj ij osru fu/kkZj.k ugha djk, tkus ,oa nks fodYiksa dk ,d lkFk p;u fd, tkus ds vkyksd esa budk osru fu/kkZj.k foRr foHkkxh; izko/kku ds iw.kZr% izfrdwy LFkkfir gksrk gSA^^
3. It is contended by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order itself is bad in law and violative of the Notification permitting 7th Pay Commission by the Government of Bihar to its employees. In order to substantiate his contention he refers to the Extraordinary Bihar Gazette Notification, published on 24th May, 2017, on the subject of revision of pay structure of the State Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The said Gazette Notification is annexed by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by them on 7th October, 2024.
4. Learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners first refers to Clause-2 of the said Notification, wherein it is stipulated:-
5. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners refers to Clause-5 of the said Gazette Notification which deals with drawal of pay in the revised pay structure. Clause 5 says:-
The court affirmed that a Gazette Notification has the force of statute and must be followed, allowing petitioners to opt for pay fixation based on their promotion.
The notification requiring recovery of excess pay under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules is constitutional and does not violate Article 14.
the relief claimed in the petition, even based on the judgment in the case of Dr B.M. Gupta, is not tenable in law as there is gross delay in approaching the Court even if presuming it to be similar ....
The court affirmed that salary fixation must adhere to statutory rules, resolving errors related to initial pay and advance increments, ensuring equitable adjustments without undue recovery demands.
The court upheld the authority's reduction of the petitioner's pay due to prior erroneous fixation, confirming compliance with the Central Civil Services Rules while quashing the recovery order.
The arbitrary introduction of a cut-off date affecting an employee's entitlement to a promotional pay scale was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The principle of stepping up pay must be applied when seniors in the same cadre are receiving lower salaries than their juniors, ensuring equitable pay that adheres to constitutional mandates.
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.