Letters Patent Appeal No.859 of 2007 ---------- Against the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8004 of 2004. --------- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Malaria Officer, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ....................Respondents/Appellants. -Versus- 1. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Narain Prasad, resident of Mirchai Ganj Lane Chowk, P.S. Chowk, Patna City, present posted as Malaria Inspector, D.M.O. Office,Begusarai. 2. Ramanuj Sharma, Son of Rajendra Prasad Sharma, resident of Mohalla-Gandhi Nagar, P. O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna -20, presently as M.I., District Malaria Office, Patna. 3. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Son of Sri Singheshwar Prasad, resident of A/50, Alakapuri, P.S. Gardanibagh, P.O. Anisabad, Patna-02, presently posted as M.I. D.M. O. Office, Gaya. 4. Yogendra Nath Pathak, Son of Late Jagannath Pathak, at present District Maleria Officer’s Office, Swasthya Bhawan, Sultanganj, Patna-6, resident of C/O S.N. Prasad, Laljee Tola, Patna-1, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5. Shashank Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, present address 14/7, Anandpuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Patna, West Boring Canal Road,Patna-1, present M.I. at D.M.O., Patna, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Son of Rajiv Narain Prasad, Ashok Nagar, Road No. 1, Kankarbagh, Patna-20, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Presently posted as D.M.O.............Ara, Petitioners/ Respondents. ---------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P. 19. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate. ---------- -With- LPA No.975 of 2007 ---------- Against the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in C. W.J.C.No. 4522 of 2004. ---------- 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Co- Ordination Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, 2 Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna......................Respondents/ Appellants. -Versus- 1. Dr.(Mrs.) Neena Jha, wife of Dr.Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate, resident of Single Duplex 1-A/8, Ashiana Nagar, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, Patna.................................................Petitioner/Respondent Ist set. 2. Sunil Kumar Pathak, S/O Shri Jai Krishna Pathak, at present posted as Additional District Public Relations Officer, Head Quarter, Information and Public Relations Department Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Shambhu Nath Jha, S/O Shri Hari Kant Jha, at present posted as Incharge, District Public Relations Officer, Nalanda, Biahrshariff ...Interveners/Respondents 2nd set. ---------- For the Appellants: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.19. For the Respondents: Mr. Yugal Kishore, Senior Advocate and M/S. Shailendra Kumar jha and Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocates. For the Intervener : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH Navin Sinha & D.K.Singh,JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in both the appeals. In both the appeals, the writ petitions have been allowed and the appellants have been directed to grant scale of pay as recommended by the Fitment Appellate Committee. The anomalies in fixation of pay scales and the consequent agitation strike by Government employees led to an agreement 3 dated 07.05.1999. This agreement was signed by the Chief Secretary, the Finance Commissioner, the Chief Minister and the Finance Minster on behalf of the State authorities, and the representatives of the employees-Union alongwith with other officers on 07.09.1999. It was resolved that for removal of anomalies, a committee shall be constituted of a sitting High Court Judge and whose recommendations shall be implemented notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 but effectively from 01.04.1997. The recommendations of this Committee shall then be implemented by the State Government within a maximum period of six months. The recommendations of the Committee shall be final and binding upon both sides. It was on this agreement that the strike of the employees was called off. Then followed a resolution dated 15.01.2000 of the State Government in the Department of Finance by which a sitting Hon’ble Judge of this Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam(as His Lordship then was) was constituted as the Appellate Fitment Committee. The very opening paragraph of the 4 Appellate Fitment Committee’s report notices from the Government resolution constituting the Committee and the agreement between the State Government and its employees that the recommendations of this Committee would be final and binding. Once, the State Government made a particular representation to its employees and on which recommendation they called off their strike subsequently reduced to a written agreement in which the State Government promised to act in a particular manner, this Court shall bind the government those standards. An assurance given by the State Government, to its employees carries sanctity and cannot be wished away lightly especially when the employees were persuaded to alter their stand on that basis. There was no compulsion on the State Government to refer the matter to the Appellate Fitment Committee for fixation of pay scales which was otherwise the exclusive prerogative of the State. Once it took a conscious decision to part with its powers and agreed to accept the recommendations of that body the State Government cannot blow hot and cold. 5 The reasoning given by the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 4522 of 2004 is fully endorsed by this court. The State Government could have reserved its rights while making the reference to the Committee or imposed limitations. It consciously chose not to do so. If it was of the opinion that any particular recommendation was not appropriate its remedy lay in approaching the Committee itself for review or reconsideration. Its unilateral decision not to accept a recommendation, is now beyond its purview and jurisdiction barred by estoppel by conduct. This Court is not satisfied that the impugned orders call for any interference. Judicial man hours may be an additional aspect. The appeals are dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 20th April, 2010. N.A.F.R./U.K./Secretary. (Navin Sinha,J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)