Justice for All: Jharkhand HC Ensures Equal Pay Benefits for Medical Staff Regardless of Litigation Status

In a landmark decision reaffirming the principle of equality in service law, the High Court of Jharkhand has ruled that benefits resulting from the quashing of an arbitrary policy must be extended to all similarly situated employees, regardless of whether they were parties to the original legal challenge.

Justice Ananda Sen of the High Court of Jharkhand, presiding over the case of Ram Prasad Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand , affirmed that when a government policy—specifically the cut-off date for the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) scheme—is declared invalid by the Court, the ruling operates in rem (against the world) rather than in personam (only against the parties in the case).

The Battle Over the Cut-Off Date

The dispute centered on the DACP scheme, which had been modified by a resolution from the Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare. Originally designed to support the Medical Cadre, the shifting of cut-off dates for eligibility had disadvantaged significant portions of the staff.

While a previous Division Bench in LPA No. 86 of 2018 had already struck down the shifting of these dates—a decision later upheld after a challenge in the Supreme Court—the State had continued to deny these benefits to employees who had not been part of the initial litigation, labeling them "fence-sitters."

The Legal Argument: Fairness vs. Procedural Rigor

The State argued that the petitioners, by failing to challenge the policy when it was first introduced, had waived their right to relief. However, the petitioners contended that once the Court had declared the underlying policy decision bad in law, it was incumbent upon the State to revise the benefits for every employee affected, as keeping those who did not litigate in a disadvantageous position created an unfair and discriminatory class of workers.

Justice Sen dismissed the State’s narrow view, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, including Lt. Col Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India (2024) and K.I. Shephard vs. Union of India , to emphasize that employees should not be "penalized" for failing to litigate if a common entitlement has been recognized by the Court.

Key Observations

Justice Sen’s ruling underscored the necessity for institutional fairness:

• On the Nature of Court Rulings: "The Judgment which declares that the cut-off date is bad, it is not in personam and rather it is in rem. It is the policy decision of the State which has been struck down which automatically revives the earlier policy."
• On Non-Litigants: "Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalize them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners."
• On the Duty of the State: "When in principle an entitlement of a group of persons has already been decided, it is immaterial as to who are the person who were appearing before the Court in the litigation. Benefits of the policy decision should be granted to all even if they are not a party to the litigation."

A Mandatory Directive

The High Court has ordered the respondent authorities to release all consequential arrears and benefits to the petitioners and all similarly situated employees within eight weeks.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to government departments that service benefits should be administered based on standard, fair application of policy rather than requiring every individual employee to approach the Court to obtain their lawful dues. By treating the LPA No. 86 of 2018 ruling as a watershed moment for the medical cadre, the Court has effectively streamlined the path to relief for potentially hundreds of staff members, saving both the employees and the judiciary from years of redundant, repetitive litigation.