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

Patna, Bihar – In a significant ruling on service benefits, the Patna High Court has dismissed an appeal by the State of Bihar, affirming that non-gazetted police personnel of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau are entitled to one month's additional salary retrospectively for the years 2015-2017. The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, held that denying the benefit, which was granted to other police units, violated the principle of parity and "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 key government resolutions. On August 27, 2015, the Home (Police) Department of Bihar granted an additional month's salary to non-gazetted personnel in various units like the District Police, GRP, and BMP to compensate for work done on holidays. However, the Vigilance Investigation Bureau was not included in this resolution.

Following representations highlighting the similarity in their duties, the government extended this benefit to the Vigilance Bureau through a new resolution dated June 30, 2017. The catch was that this benefit was made effective prospectively, from the date of the new resolution, depriving the personnel of the additional salary for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

The affected personnel challenged this in a writ petition, which a learned Single Judge allowed, terming the initial exclusion a "technical error" and ordering retrospective payment. The State of Bihar then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against this order.

Arguments in Court

For the State of Bihar (Appellant): Learned Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi argued that the 2017 resolution was a fresh policy decision and, as per the cardinal principle of law, financial benefits apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. He contended that the exclusion of the Vigilance Department in 2015 was a deliberate policy choice, not a technical error. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab vs. Amar Nath Goyan , he emphasized that the financial impact is a valid consideration for the government when fixing a cut-off date for benefits.

For the Vigilance Personnel (Respondent): Mrs. Prakritita Sharma, counsel for the respondents, defended the Single Judge's order. She argued that the work performed by the Vigilance Bureau—including station duty, investigations, and trap operations—was identical in nature and intensity to that of other police units already receiving the benefit. She submitted that even departmental communications had acknowledged this parity. Denying them the benefit for the interim period was discriminatory and violated the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work." She relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments like P. Savita vs. Union of India and State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh to bolster her claim for equality and parity in payment.

High Court's Rationale and Decision

The Division Bench found merit in the arguments presented by the respondents. The court concluded that the classification between the Vigilance Bureau and other police units for the purpose of this benefit was arbitrary, given the similarity of their duties and responsibilities.

The court's decision hinged on the principle that where the work is qualitatively and quantitatively the same, differential treatment in pay is unjustified.

In its final order, the bench delivered a clear directive:

> "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..."

Final Verdict and Implications

By dismissing the state's appeal, the Patna High Court has reinforced the fundamental service law principle of "equal pay for equal work." The judgment ensures that police personnel in the Vigilance Investigation Bureau receive the same financial benefits as their counterparts in other departments for the period in question, correcting what the court viewed as an arbitrary exclusion. The state has been directed to calculate and disburse the pending arrears as per the original order of the Single Judge.