IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1561 of 2010 1. Harendra Prasad Yadav S/O Rama Prasad Yadav R/O Vill- P.C. Dhenuki, P.S Panapur, Distt- Saran 2. Brajnandan Sahay S/O Ganesh Prasad R/O Vill Kanhauli,Manchar, P.O- Puchhari, P.S Baniyapur, Distt- Saran 3. Krishna Kumar S/O Late Vishwnath R/O Moh-Gudari Bahadi Mor, P.S Bhagwan Bazar, Distt- Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Finance 2. The Collector, Saran 3. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna 3/ 30/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 8.12.2008 granting different A.C.P. scales for matriculate and graduate revenue karmcharis. It was next contended that the cut-off date of 8.4.2005 for making such distinction is wholly arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the differentiation in the A.C.P. scale was based on educational qualifications. Referring to the cut-off date of 8.4.2005 it was submitted that it is based on the formulation of the Revenue Service Rules, 2005 regulating promotions to the next higher post of Circle Inspector. The cut-off date is therefore not arbitrary. Differentiation in pay-scale on basis of educational qualifications has been held to be a relevant criteria. It also reflects on the output capacity, 2 recruitment limitations etc. Upholding such classification the Supreme Court in 1989 3 SCC 191 (V. Markendeya v. State of A.P.) has held at paragraph-7 as follows:- “7. …Since classification on the basis of educational qualification is a valid consideration for discriminating in matters pertaining to promotion to the higher post, there is no reason as to why the same principle is not applicable for prescribing scales of pay. Having regard to the findings recorded by the Constitution Bench in Mohd. Shujat Ali case1 that graduate supervisors and non- graduate supervisors constitute two distinct classes, the non-graduate supervisors cannot validly claim parity with the graduate supervisors regarding pay scales. The appellants' grievance that they have been denied equality in violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution is not sustainable.” Similar view has been taken in 2008 7 SCC 231(State of Bihar v. Bihar State ‘Plus-2’ Lecturers Associations) at para-32 as follows:- “32. It, therefore, cannot be successfully contended that different pay scales cannot be fixed for trained lecturers on one hand and untrained lecturers on the other hand. Prescribing different pay scales, under the circumstances, cannot be held illegal, improper or unreasonable infringing Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Court therefore does not find substance in the submission that there was no justification for making such distinction in pay scale. 3 A cut-off date fixed out of the hat with no criteria or justification may be arbitrary in the given facts of a case. But when it is linked to the preparation of the Revenue Service Rules, 2005 which provides for promotion to the next higher post and the A.C.P. is to be given in the basic grade of that promotional post, it cannot be held that the cut off date is completely arbitrary fixed on no criteria or basis. It being a matter of policy reference may usefully be made to (1997) 5 SCC 167 (State of Haryana v. Rai Chand Jain) at paragraph-5:- “5. Mr Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel has stated that fixation of 38 months for payment of arrears is arbitrary. We find no force in the contention. It is for the Government to decide as a part of the executive policy as to from which date the arrears would be granted to the employees. The matter being an executive policy in character, we do not think that the decision taken by them is arbitrary violating Article 14 of the Constitution.” The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)