The Supreme Court has held that under Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, judgments delivered by the Patna High Court prior to the creation of the State of Jharkhand are binding on the successor State. The Court ruled that the State cannot plead its own inefficiency to deny legitimate rights to employees and that financial implications cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination.
The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court and restored the decision of the Single Judge, directing the State of Jharkhand to revise the pay scale of the appellant, Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, on parity with similarly situated employees.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by the State of Bihar in 1981 for filling sixteen types of Graduate-level Non-gazetted Class-III vacancies, including the post of Industries Extension Officer (IEO), through a common competitive examination. The appellant was selected and appointed as an IEO on May 27, 1992, in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600.
Originally, all sixteen posts carried the same pay scale. However, following the 4th Pay Revision, an anomaly emerged: ten posts were granted a higher revised scale, while six posts, including that of the appellant, were placed in a lower scale. This disparity persisted in the 5th Pay Revision.
In 1993, the Patna High Court, in the case of Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar, held that there was no reasonable classification to justify the different pay scales for posts filled through the same examination. The High Court directed that all incumbents of the sixteen posts be granted the higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2780.
The appellant, whose services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand following the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, made representations seeking the higher pay scale. These were rejected by the Respondent-Employer on September 13, 2004. Consequently, the appellant approached the Jharkhand High Court.
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on December 14, 2011, relying on the Nagendra Sahani judgment. However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order on March 30, 2022, citing a delay of 20 years in claiming the benefit and stating that the Patna High Court judgment had only “persuasive value.”
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. S.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the case was squarely covered by the Patna High Court’s judgments in Nagendra Sahani and Alakh Kumar Sinha. He contended that the appellant was identically placed and entitled to parity. He submitted that the Fitment Appellate Committee had also recommended a uniform revised scale. The counsel emphasized that the claim did not suffer from delay as the right to pay parity is a continuing cause of action.
Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, supported the Division Bench’s decision. He argued that the appellant approached the Court after an unexplained delay of over two decades, and allowing such belated claims would have a “cascading financial repercussion.” He contended that the Nagendra Sahani judgment, delivered in the context of Bihar, could not automatically apply to Jharkhand without examining policy considerations.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined two primary issues: the binding nature of the Patna High Court’s pre-reorganization judgments on the State of Jharkhand, and the question of delay and laches.
1. Binding Nature of Patna High Court Judgments Referencing Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Court observed that orders made by the Patna High Court before the “appointed day” shall have effect “not only as an order of the High Court at Patna, but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand.”
The Bench stated:
“The judgment in Nagendra Sahani (supra), though rendered by the High Court at Patna on 22.09.1993 i.e., before the State re-organization, nonetheless, it must be treated by virtue of Section 34(4) as binding precedent of the High Court of Jharkhand.”
The Court criticized the Division Bench for ignoring this statutory provision and treating the precedent as merely persuasive. The Court held:
“Once it is established that the factual matrix is identical and the legal issue involved is the same, the principle of judicial discipline demands that similar relief be granted to similarly situated persons.”
2. Delay and Laches On the issue of the petition being barred by delay, the Court reiterated the principle settled in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, noting that a claim regarding correct pay fixation is based on a “continuing wrong.”
The Court observed:
“The plea of delay and laches cannot be sustained in a case involving continuing violation of rights that too in the light of the nature of directions issued in rem.”
The Bench noted that the appellant had consistently pursued his claim through representations. The Court rejected the State’s argument regarding financial implications, stating:
“Financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination. The State, being the model employer, cannot plead its own inefficiency or negligence to deny legitimate rights to its employees.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated March 30, 2022. The Court restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated December 14, 2011, holding that the appellant is entitled to the removal of anomalies in the pay scale.
The Court directed the respondents to comply with the directions of the Single Judge within three months from the date of the judgment. The appellant was also granted the cost of litigation.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14046 of 2024
- Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
