IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7426 of 2004 1. Brajendra Prasad Lal son of late Ram Pati Lal resident of village Dehri P.S. Rajpur, Dist. Buxar. 2. Ramnath Prasad Singh son of late Gopi Singh resident of village Gayaspur P.S. Paru Dist. Muzaffarpur. 3. Rameshwar Shukla son of late Ramswaroop Sukla, resident of village Parataptand P.S. Bhaganpur, Dist. Vaishali. 4. Kali Charan Prasad son of late Kapil Deo Prasad Resident of village Meral, P.S. Meral, Dist. Garhwa, Jharkhand. 5. Mahabir Yadav son of late Charitar Yadav, resident of village- Dahuarha, P.S. Manigacha, Dist. Datbhanga. 6. Rajmani Prasad Singh son of late Deo Narayan Singh resident of village- Mahuari, P.S. Gotibandh, Dist. Gaya. 7. Smt Urmila Devi wife of late Saha Shyam Narayan Prasad, resident of village- Sarisab Sarisbathahi, P.S. Pandaul, Dist. Madhubani. …………. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar New Secretariate Patna. 3. The Director Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar New Secretariate Patna. 4. The Deputy Director Agriculture Marketing Raja Bazar Patna. 5. The Joint Director Agriculture cum Controller Weights and measures Raja Bazar Patna. 6. The Bihar State Agriculture marketing Board Pant Bhawan Baily Road Patna through its Managing Director. 7. The Managing Director the Bihar State Agriculture marketing Board Pant Bhawan Bailey Road Patna. ….. .. Respondents. with CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7666 of 2005 1. Madheshwar Singh, son of late Babulal Singh, resident of Postal Park Indira Nagar Main Road, P.S. Jakkhanpur Dist. Patna at present working as Price Reporter Agriculture Produce Market Committee Patna City. 2. Satya Narain Singh, son of late Brahmdeo Singh, resident of South Chandmari Road Near Pani Tanki Road no.2 P.S. Lohia Nagar Patna-20. … Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar New Secretariat Patna. 3. The Director Department of Agriculture Government of Bihar New Secretariat Patna. 4. The Deputy Director Agriculture Marketing Raja Bazar Patna. 2 5. The Joint Director Agriculture cum Controller Weights and measures Raja Bazar Patna. 6. The Bihar State Agriculture marketing Board Pant Bhawan Baily Road Patna through its Managing Director. 7. The Managing Director the Bihar State Agriculture marketing Board Pant Bhawan Bailey Road. .. Respondents. 12. 01.07.2011. These writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the identical pay scale to the Price Reporters appointed by the State Government at par with the pay scale of the Price Reporters of the Marketing Board where the petitioners have been deputed. It appears that the petitioners are employees of the State Government working in Category-VIII in the Department of Agriculture. With the formation of Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) the services of the petitioners have been placed under the disposal of Board till their superannuation. 2. The case of the petitioners is that even though they are performing identical service and nature of duty as their counter parts being the Price Reporters appointed by the Board, yet there is disparity in the pay scales and the petitioners are being paid at a lower pay scale without any ostensible or justifiable reason. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 3 No. 7426 of 2004 places reliance on a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 (Annexure-12) of his writ petition wherein a similar matter was considered and this Court was pleased to direct that the petitioners therein should be paid on the basis of identical pay scale as that of the Market Secretary appointed by the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board. He further points out from Annexure-13 to the writ petition that in the petitioner’s own case in C.W.J.C. No. 11071 of 1997, this Court by its order dated 26.10.1999 considered the matter, taking note of the averment made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State that the final decision in the SLP pending against the aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 would be considered. It was further specifically observed that in the counter affidavit nothing had been pointed out to distinguish the case of those petitioners from the cases of the Price Reporters appointed by the respondent Board. 4. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the State Government as well as to the Board to act according to the principles finally decided by the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP as and when decided. 4 5. As it transpires, by the time the SLP was taken up the respondents had already retired and the amount involved also being petty, the matter was not gone into on merits. The question of law thus remained open. 6. The petitioners now contend that even though the question of law has not been finally decided by the Apex Court yet the principles as laid down by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 would be applicable to the case of the petitioners having not so far been upset by the Apex Court. It is clear that the parties had conceded before the Apex Court in the SLP being fully mindful of the consequences and the fallout of such concession namely that the payment would have to be made to those petitioners as claimed. No doubt the Apex Court had observed that the dismissal of the SLP would not be treated as a precedent, still the fact remains that the issue was not decided and as a result, the decision in C.W.J.C. No.6261 of 1985 continued to be effective. 7. In view of the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 it is noteworthy that in para -22, this Court had extended the benefit of identical pay scales not only to the petitioners but also to other Market Secretaries designated as 5 Grade-B on and from 20.12.1985 when the petitioner had approached the Court. It is the case of the petitioners that on a parity of reasoning, they should also be paid identical pay scales with their counter parts who have been appointed directly by the Board. 8. It appears that the respondents have now passed an order dated 20.06.2007 forming Annexure-14 to the amendment petition in I.A. No. 10440 of 2010 filed on behalf of the petitioners. 9. No one appears on behalf of the Marketing Board. Learned counsel for the State appears and seeks to support the order passed on 20.06.2007 (Annexure-14 of the amendment petition). He further invites attention of this Court to Annexure-A of his supplementary counter affidavit which comprises of an order vide memo no. 2796 dated 09.08.2007 whereby some distinction in the terms of service conditions have been pointed out such as pensionery benefits etc. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 4187 of 2011 for quashing the order dated 09.08.2007 as well. 10. On perusal of the order dated 20.06.2007, it is seen that the claim of the petitioners has been negatived but without giving any cogent reasons for such denial save and 6 except that the question has been left open by the Apex Court. Not a single reason whatsoever has, however, been assigned for not following the reasoning of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 nor even their own statement made in the counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No. 11071 of 1997. It also appears to be an afterthought on the part of the respondents, considering that by the earlier letter no. 436 dated 26.07.2004 they had admitted the petitioners claim but have now reneged from their position by the impugned order (Annexure-14 of the amendment petition) and that too without assigning any meaningful reasons. This is also evident from the concluding part of the impugned order which directs initiation of an LPA to be filed for quashing the order dated 26.10.1999 passed in the petitioners’ case in C.W.J.C. no. 11071 of 1997 after a long gap of about seven years. 11. Counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that to his knowledge, no such LPA has been filed till date as no copy thereof has been served upon him even after a lapse of further about 5 years since the decision to file the LPA was taken. 12. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 20.06.2007 does not contain adequate reason for 7 denial of the petitioners’ claim. It is also a settled principle of law that until a decision is overturned or reversed by a higher Court, the same continues to be operational. The effect of the dismissal of the SLP and that too on the concession at the Bar, is that the order passed by the High Court revives. 13. As far as the order dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure-A of the supplementary counter affidavit) is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that it is no more than an afterthought inasmuch as an order having already been passed on 20.06.2007 the respondents cannot indefinitely to go passing a series of orders. In any event, except for enumerating a few differences in the service conditions, no valid reasons have still be afforded for denial of equal pay for equal work to the petitioners as compared with their counterparts directly recruited by the Board. 14. The pleas and counter-pleas in the analogous writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 7666 of 2005 are substantially the same as in C.W.J.C. No. 7426 of 2004. 15. It is, accordingly, held that the order dated 20.06.2007 (Annexure-14 of the amendment petition) and also the later order dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure ‘A’ to the supplementary counter affidavit) cannot be sustained in law 8 and are quashed as such. The respondents are directed to fix and make payment to the petitioners on the identical pay scale with that of the Price Reporters appointed by the Board on and from the date when the petitioners approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11071 of 1997. Considering that the petitioners have already superannuated, steps in this direction may be taken by the respondents expeditiously. 16. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Ibrar/- ( Vikash Jain, J.)