CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1545 OF 1997 ******* In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ******* 1. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINHA, son of late Shri Vijay Shanker Prasad is working in Criminal Disposal Section, Patna High Court, Patna & resident of Flat No.543, L.B.S. Nagar, Patna-23. 2. Shri Rabindra Prasad, son of Shri Sidheshwar Prasad, at present working in the Copying Department, Patna High Court, Patna. 3. Shri Ramanand Singh no.1, son of late Ram Bahal Singh, at present working in the Copying Department, Patna High Court, Patna. 4. Shri Ram Pravesh Chaurasia, son of late Bijo Chaurasia is working in the Copying Department, Patna High Court, Patna. 5. Shri Upendra Prasad, son of Shri Ramdas Mahto, at present working in Writ Section, Patna High Court, Patna. 6. Shri Rampyare Sinha, son of late Yogi Singh is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 7. Shri Naresh Prasad, son of Shri Karu Singh is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 8. Shri Sunil Kumar Verma, son of late T.P. Verma is working in Copying Comparing Section, Patna High Court, Patna. 9. Shri Anil Kumar Singh, son of Shri Damodar Raut is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 10. Shri Tarun kumar Sinha, son of late Shri Mahesh Nandan Prasad is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 11. Shri Dinesh Prasad, son of late Shri Lal Das Yadav is working in Statical Department, High Court, Patna. 12. Shri Ram Kishore Prasad, son of Shri Hari Prasad is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 13. Shri Sheo Narayan Prasad, son of Halkhori Prasad is working in Copying Department, High Court, Patna. 14. Shri Ramanand Singh No.2, son of Shri Ram Singhasan Singh is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 15. Shri Parmanand Singh, son of late Ram Bahal Singh is working in Copying Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 16. Shri Bhola Prasad Singh, son of Shri Ram Prasad Singh is working in Library Department, Patna High Court, Patna. 17. Shri Duryodhan Pandit, son of Bhola Pandit is working in A.D. (Miscellaneous Department), High Court, Patna. 18. Shri Hirdaya Narayan Kakkar, son of Shri Narayan Seth is working in Comparing Section, High Court, Patna. 2 19. Shri Muklendra Kishore, son of Shri Ram Bilash Prasad is working in Criminal Revision Section, High Court, Patna. 20. Shri Sidheshwar Pandit, son of late Gandar Pandit is working in Criminal Miscellaneous Section, Patna High Court, Patna. ……… Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chief Justice (Administrative Side) of Patna High Court, Patna. 3. The Registrar General, High Court, Patna. …… Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad & Mr. Rajneesh, Advocates. For the High Court: Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate. For the S t a t e: Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C.-19 with Mr. Amit, A.C. to S.C. 19. ********* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ******* S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition has been preferred by a group of employees of the Patna High Court for a direction to the High Court on the administrative side to consider the representations of the petitioners for the following reliefs: (i) Consequent upon the declaration by the State Government to give to the category of employees to which the petitioners belong, the status of permanent Government servants accompanied with the pay-scale 3 of Rs.580-860/-. It is further prayed that they may not be discriminated against in so far as the higher pay- scales of junior selection grade and senior selection grade are concerned. (ii) They may be considered for promotion to the next higher level of Assistants in the establishment of the Patna High Court. 2. Before we proceed further, we record the statements made on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no.14 (Ramanand Singh No.2), petitioner no.15 (Parmanand Singh), and petitioner no.20 (Sidheshwar Pandit), have since superannuated from Government service, and petitioner no.17 (Duryodhan Pandit) has passed away. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The establishment of the Patna High Court and those of the civil courts under it had been engaging typists for its Copying department on piece-rated basis. Such typists were not Government servants, and had been submitting representations to the High Court and the State Government to make them Government servants. The State Government ultimately acceded to their request and declared all such remunerative typists as permanent Government servants, vide communication dated 30.9.1978 (Annexure-A), from the State 4 Government in the Department of Law to the Accountant General, Bihar. The detailed terms and conditions of their absorption in Government service are mentioned in this communication. 3.1) After this, the petitioners and similarly circumstanced employees started their second round of struggle for improvement of the terms and conditions of service, and parity with the regular typists who were already functioning in the High Court establishment and were appointed on regular basis. This led to a number of writ petitions in this Court and also appeal(s) before the Supreme Court. The substance of those orders, with minor variation of language in different orders, is that the petitioners shall be given the replacement pay-scale of Rs.580-860/- from 1st September 1988, the scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee set up by the State Government for the regular typists of the High Court and the civil courts. 3.2) The third round of struggle commenced for promotion to the next higher level. The petitioners felt that they have not been given the benefits in accordance with the Government decision dated 30.9.1978 (Annexure-A), and the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court, leading to the present writ petition. 4. Respondent no.3 has placed on record an exhaustive counter affidavit and has illumined the position. 5 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have not been informed as to the mode and manner in which the petitioners had initially been selected to work, namely, in what mode and manner they were selected to work as remunerative typists in the High Court and the civil courts. This has some relevance in view of the position stated in the Government communication dated 30.9.1978 (Annexure-A), that such typists in future shall not be appointed with the qualification less than matriculation. However, the existing remunerative typists with qualification of less than matriculation will not be removed and shall be entitled to permanent absorption. On a perusal of the materials on record, we are convinced that the petitioners have been given the pay-scale of Rs.580-860/- as recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, and indeed was the direction of the Supreme Court of 26.8.1988. This part of the controversy has finally terminated to the full satisfaction of the petitioners. 6. This takes us on to the second aspect of the matter. The petitioners raise a grievance that, after they have been given the pay-scale of Rs.580-860/-, they should have been given the pay- scales of junior selection grade and senior selection grade as admissible to the regular typists in the High Court. This issue has 6 been answered by respondent no.3 in paragraph 10 of his counter affidavit as follows: “10. That in the meantime, recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee was accepted by the State Government vide resolution dated 30th of December, 1981. The Typists of the Issue Section as well as the Ex-Remunerative Typists were provided with the replacement scale of Rs.580- 860/-. The Typists of the Issue Section were, however, allowed the pay scale of Rs.730-1080/- for the Junior Selection Grade, the scale of Rs.850- 1360/- for the Senior Selection Grade and the scale of Rs.880-1510/- for Superintendent. But the Typists of the Copying Department were allowed lower scale of pay for Jr. selection Grade and Sr. Selection Grade which were Rs.680-965/- and Rs.730-1080/- respectively. It was in this background, some of the Ex-remunerative Typists, including some of the petitioners moved before this Hon‟ble Court by filing a writ petition C.W.J.C. No.2111 of 1986 for a direction on the respondents to implement the decision of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, vide Annexure-II and grant them the same pay for Jr. Selection Grade and Sr. Selection Grade as have been allowed to the Jr. Selection Grade and Sr. Selection Grade Typists of the Issue Section. The said writ petition CWJC No.2111 of 1986 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court vide its judgment dated 8th of May, 1987, and the writ petition was dismissed. It is evident on a perusal of this portion of the counter affidavit that such were the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, namely, the regular typists shall be given the higher pay-scale in junior selection grade and senior selection grade. Indeed such was the direction of the Courts in the various writ petitions and the order of the Supreme Court adverted to 7 hereinabove. In other words, the orders of this Court have been to the effect that the petitioners shall be given the pay-scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. We are convinced that the higher pay-scales to the regular typists in the junior selection grade and the senior selection grade, and correspondingly lower scales to the petitioners, is consistent with the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners is, in spite of repeated queries during the course of submissions, unable to point out any material to show that such were not the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief on this score. 7. The last grievance raised on behalf of the petitioners relates to promotion. The Patna High Court on the administrative side has since framed the Patna High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟), which, inter alia, governs the issues relating to promotion of the category of employees to which the petitioners belong. In due implementation of the terms of the Rules, respondent no.3 had issued notice dated 1.2.1997 (Annexure- 19), calling upon the categories of employees mentioned therein which included the petitioners, to appear at the selection process for promotion to the next higher level of Assistant. 25% of this category 8 is reserved for the serving Class-III employees. A number of candidates of this category including the petitioners appeared at the test, and indeed petitioner no.15 ((Parmanand Singh), was successful and was promoted. Paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.3 gives the details in this connection and is reproduced hereinbelow: “25. That it is further stated that as provided for in rule 8 read with item no.19 of the 1997 Rules, the High Court issued a notice dated 1.2.1997 inviting applications from the ex-cadre personnel, including the Typists of the Copying Department to appear at a limited competitive test for appointment against 25% of the existing vacancies in the cadre of Assistants in response to which a number of Typists of the Copying Department, including some of the petitioners applied and participated in the limited competitive test held on 23.2.1997. However, none of the petitioners except one Shri Parmanand Singh (Petitioner no.15) passed the test for being called at the interview scheduled to be held on 2.3.1997. Now he has also been appointed to the post of Assistant. From the result it is manifest that none of the Typists of the Copying Department including the petitioners herein, except one as stated above, has been able even to qualify at the limited test for being considered for appointment to the cadre of Assistants and, therefore, on this ground also the writ petition is fit to be dismissed at the threshold, they being not eligible for being appointed to the post of Assistants.” In other words, the petitioners were given opportunity as per the Rules to appear at the written test to qualify for promotion. The petitioners were given due opportunity in accordance with law 9 for the purpose of promotion to the next higher level of Assistant. We are convinced that the grievances of the petitioners have been taken care of by the High Court on the administrative side by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 9 Before we part with the records, we must note the statement made by learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 on our query that they are appearing without any payment. We appreciate their gesture. In that view of the matter, let the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna, pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand), to Mr. Amish Kumar, learned junior counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 10. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. (S.K. Katriar, J.) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 3rd day of November, 2010 S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)