Uniform application of employee classification based on government policy and previous court orders is critical to avoid discrimination.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

2 18-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-University and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for grant of following relief :-

(i) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as class-III employee from date of appointment i.e., w.e.f. 15.02.2002 in view of order of the Hon’ble High Court in CWJC No.11361 of 2007 order dated 08.10.2010 r/w Memo No.SC/88/24 dated 01.06.2024 since the candidates having same qualification appointed with the petitioner has been trated class-III employee from date of initial apointment whereas the petitioner is being discriminated.

(ii) For a declaration that the petitioner had similar qualification like the compassionate appointees notified by Memo No.3913-66/08 dated 04.04.2008 (amended letter) therefore similar cadre, I..e, class-III and pay scale may be extended to the petitioner with all consequential benefit.”

3. While advancing argument, the petitioner has relied upon order dated 08.10.2010 (Annexpure P/7) passed in C.W.J.C. No.11361 of 2007 in which the following observation and direction was made :-

“….This Court in given circumstances would therefore direct the present Vice-Chancellor of the University to consider the cases of the petitioners and if for the reasons explained in the counter affidavit including the government policy of the year, 1995 the persons once appointed on Class-IV posts cannot be given Class-III posts, the same should not be made applicable only in the case of the petitioners but for all others. In that event even the persons upgraded from Class-IV posts to Class-III posts including those benefits by the order of the University dated 25.07.2006 (Annexure-2) will have also to be reverted back to their Class-IV posts. If,l however, the University does not care for the government instruction and would evolve its own methodology to upgrade the already appointed Class-IV employees to Class-III posts,it also must be fair by uniformly making it applicable in other similar cases including the petitioners In that view of the matter, these applications are being disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a firm decision in the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order whether by upgrading the petitioners and all other similarly situated person with the same benefits as was extended to ten other employees vide order contained in Annexure-2 dated 25.07..2006 or to also cancel Annexure-2 for others so that everyone being appointed on compassionate ground being of the same class gets equal treatment in the matter of continuation in service of the university.

With the aforesaid observations and directions these applications are disposed of.”

4. He further relies on the Bihar State Litigation Police, 2011 in which Clause 4(c) stats as follows :-

“4.C(1) A good number of cases are from the category of similar cases. Each Government Department will aim to consider and settle the claim of the representations/applicant-employee/citizen, if the claim is found covered by any decision of the Court. Many service matters of this nature, can be disposed of at the level of the Department itself without compelling the litigant to come to the Court. IN this manner, the Government Departments would be acting as efficient litigants.”

5. A specific query was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is relying upon the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11361 of 2007 and the Bihar Litigation