CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5448 OF 1994 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 1. RAM LAKHAN , S/O LATE SIYA RAM, R/O VILLAGE DALDALI CHAK, P.O. DHABIGHA, P.S. NAGAR NAUSA, DISTRICT NALANDA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA SALIMPUR AHRA, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA 2. RAM PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE NATHUNI PD. YADAV, R/O NAYA TOLA, KAJIPUR, PATNA 3. PRAMOD CHANDRA JHA, S/O KRISHNA KANT JHA, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. DULHA, P.S. BISHTI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, P.O. PURANDARPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, PATNA 4. NARESH PRASAD, S/O YOGENDRA SINGH, R/O MOHALLA CHANDPUR BELA, NEAR BARKA KUAN, P.O. PURANDARPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, PATNA 5. SURENDRA KUMAR, S/O KRISHNA PRASAD, R/O SOUTH MANDIRI, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. BUDDHA COLONY, PATNA 6. BHAWANAND MISHRA, S/O LATE KAMLANAND MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE KAKROUL, P.S. RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HIGH COURT CAMPUS, PATNA ---------------------------------------------(PETITIONERS) Versus 1. PATNA HIGH COURT , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 5. FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. LAW SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA -------------------------------------(RESPONDENTS) For The Petitioner :PUSHKAR NARAIN SHAHI For The Respondent :SITESH CHANDRA MITRA P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioners are employees of the Patna High Court and were initially appointed as Record Suppliers and Treasury Sarkars on various dates as stated at paragraph -3 of the writ application. 2. Initially, they had filed this writ application claiming that they are Class IV employees and that they should be given an opportunity to be promoted as Class III employees 2 as per Gazette notification of the State Government issued on 11.2.1985 and 4.10.1990 (Annexure 1 & 2) as per the Rules stated therein. A counter affidavit was filed by the High Court stating therein that the petitioners are Class III employees, belonging to the Superior Service and were born in the Scale of Rs. 825-1200/- as per the Bihar Government Servants Classification of Posts & Services Rules. The petitioners, thereafter, accepted the statements made by the High Court treating them to be as Class III employees of the High Court and had prayed that they should be given the scale (including the replacement scale) as applicable to Class III employees of the Patna High Court. At this juncture I may state that there are several grades of Scale, for different posts, in the Patna High Court. All post belongs to the Class III category. 3. At present, the petitioners service conditions are governed by the Rules framed, i.e., The Patna High Court Officers and Staffs (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1997. The specific claim of the Record Suppliers is that they should be treated at par with the Treasury Sarkars who were both granted the same Scale of pay right up till the Fifth Pay Revision 3 Committee Report. 4. After the Fifth Pay Revision Committee Report was implemented, several persons including the petitioners filed a representation before the Anomaly Removal Committee for allowing them the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1400/- in place of Rs. 825-1200, which was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 who are Record Suppliers were given different Pay Scales to petitioner no. 6 who was initially appointed as a Treasury Sarkar. 5. The matter regarding treating the petitioners to be at parity with the Treasury Sarkars remained pending before the High Court. The petitioners filed representation which is at Annexure-10 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 25.4.2000 to the Hon’ble High Court through the Registrar General, Patna High Court. 6. The petitioners have also brought on record a letter of the Registrar General addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Law (Judl.) Department, for considering the enhancement of Pay Scales of Pass Distributors, Assistant Cashiers and Treasury Sarkars. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners, who are Record Suppliers has been ignored by the High Court. 4 7. There is disparity in the pay scale of Treasury Sarkars and Record Suppliers since the recommendation of the Anomaly Removal Committee constituted by the State Government for removal of the anomaly sometime after the 5th Pay Revision Commission’s report. The grievance of the petitioners has been pending and has not been addressed by any of the respondents. The reasons for the disparity in pay scale have not been stated before this Court. However, the submission is that the petitioners apprehend that one of the reasons could be, that because of the fact that the petitioners have the qualification of being Matriculates, whereas the Treasury Sarkars have the educational qualification of having passed Intermediate examination. It has been submitted that this qualification for the said posts has been introduced after the appointment of the petitioners and it can not be the reason for discriminating the petitioners vis-à-vis the Treasury Sarkars. For this purpose the counsel for the petitioners relies on a decision of this Court in Jailendra Pandit & Ors. Vs the State of Bihar (unreported) disposed of on 15.9.2006. In the said case the petitioners were appointed as Data Entry Operators prior to the acceptance by the Government of the Sixth Pay Fitment Committee 5 Report. The petitioners did not have qualification of having a Diploma, Degree or Certificate in Computer Science or Engineering but were given the Scale applicable to Data Entry Operator. The Pay Commission had fixed two pay scales for the post of Data Entry Operators, one batch came within the category of those persons who had the qualifications of having a diploma / degree certificate of computer science and the other batch consisted of those who did not have the qualification aforesaid. The petitioners obviously were fitted against the lower Pay Scale. This Court held, that if, at a subsequent date there is a decision by the Government or any Authority, enhancing the qualification for a particular post, it can not be held against the person to give him a lower Scale, although, he had been treated as equal with others who were treated at par with the Post/Scale at the time of their appointment, and as such, counsel for the petitioners claim that the petitioners would be entitled to the higher Scale as granted to the Treasury Sarkars, as both the posts have been treated at par as far the payment of Scale was concerned. 8. Whatever be the reasons for the difference in fixation of Scales the matter 6 should come to rest, once and for all, and the petitioners should be given an opportunity to be considered for promotion, and as such, I direct the petitioners to file a fresh representation to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice through the Registrar General of the Patna High Court who should forward the same after considering all the facts including Annexures 1 & 2 of the writ application wherein the Record Suppliers and the Treasury Sarkars have been treated at par with respect to pay scale granted to the two posts. As noticed, in fact there was no difference of pay scale till the recommendation of Fifth Pay Revision Committee and the subsequent facts that have developed thereafter. The Registrar General should dispose of the matter by making appropriate comment and forward it to the Finance Department through the Law Secretary, Bihar, Patna. I would like to draw the attention of the Registrar General to the fact that the petitioners have been agitating for their rights since 1994 which (has caused) makes it necessary for the High Court and the concerned Authorities to expedite the matter. I, therefore, direct the Law Secretary and the Finance Secretary to pass an appropriate order within a period of four months of receipt of the recommendations of the 7 Registrar General, Patna High Court. One of the points that have been raised on behalf of the petitioners is that there are no avenues of promotion, and, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Tripura Vs K.K. Roy, (2004)-IX-Supreme Court Cases, Page 65 the petitioners should be granted time bound promotion as well. Of course the case of petitioners 3 and 6 would stand on a different footing as they have appeared in the limited test for the post of Assistants and are now working as Assistants in the Patna High Court. The application is disposed of with aforesaid observations. Patna High Court, Dated 29th of April, 2010 N.A.F.R/ Praful ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )