Patna High Court Upholds Retrospective Pay Benefit for Vigilance Police, Cites 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'

Patna, Bihar – In a significant ruling on service law, the Patna High Court has dismissed an appeal by the State of Bihar, affirming that police personnel of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau are entitled to one month's additional salary retrospectively for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Division Bench, comprising the Honourable Acting Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, upheld a Single Judge's order, reinforcing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

The court set aside the prospective application of a 2017 government resolution, directing the state to disburse the arrears to the eligible personnel.

Background of the Dispute

The case originated from two separate government resolutions concerning additional pay for police personnel.

1. Resolution of 2015: On August 27, 2015, the Home (Police) Department, Bihar, issued a resolution granting one month's additional salary annually to non-gazetted police personnel in various units like District Police, G.R.P., and B.M.P. This was to compensate for work rendered during holidays. However, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was conspicuously excluded.

2. Resolution of 2017: Following grievances from the Vigilance personnel who argued for parity based on the similarity of their duties, the Home Department issued a new resolution on June 30, 2017. This resolution extended the benefit of one month's additional salary to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau. Crucially, it was made effective prospectively from the date of the resolution.

The Vigilance personnel challenged this prospective application, seeking the benefit from the original 2015 date. A Single Judge ruled in their favor, terming the initial exclusion a "technical error." The State of Bihar then appealed this decision.

Arguments in Court

For the State of Bihar (Appellants): The Advocate General, Mr. P.K. Shahi, argued that financial benefits granted through policy decisions are, by cardinal principle, applied prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. He contended that the 2017 resolution was a fresh policy decision, not a correction of an error. Citing the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Amar Nath Goyan , he emphasized that financial implications are a valid consideration for fixing a cut-off date for such benefits.

For the Vigilance Personnel (Respondents): Advocate Ms. Prakritita Sharma, representing the police personnel, countered that her clients performed duties of a similar nature to other police units, including station duty, investigations, and trap operations, often working on Sundays and holidays. She argued that denying them the benefit from 2015 created an arbitrary and unjust classification. The respondents relied heavily on the constitutional principle of 'equal pay for equal work', citing landmark Supreme Court judgments like P. Savita vs. Union of India and State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh , which mandate equal pay for employees performing identical duties and responsibilities.

High Court's Rationale and Decision

The Division Bench found merit in the arguments presented by the respondents. The court concluded that the exclusion of Vigilance personnel from the 2015 resolution, despite the similarity of their work, was unjust. It held that the subsequent inclusion in 2017 should rectify the past disparity.

In its dispositive paragraph, the Court held:

> "We are of the considered opinion to set aside the Resolution No. 5290 dated 30.06.2017 only to the extent, whereby, the benefit of payment of additional salary of one month has been given prospective application by virtue of Clause 6. We hold that the respondents are entitled for additional one month salary for the year 2015-2016 and 2016- 2017..."

The bench found no merit in the state's appeal and dismissed it, thereby confirming the Single Judge's directive for the government to calculate and disburse the pending additional salary for the two financial years within three months. The decision serves as a strong precedent for ensuring parity in pay and benefits for government employees performing comparable roles across different departments.