Patna High Court
Birendra Kumar Singh And Ors. vs Bihar State Agricultural Marketing ... on 19 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)BLJR152
JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners, who are working as Price Reporters in the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) have filed the present application to grant the same pay scale to the petitioners which are being given to the Market Supervisor as per office order No. 796 dated 5.9.94, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application.
3. According to the petitioners the Price Reporter as well as Market Supervisor were getting the same scale from 1980 and in 1994 they were in the pay scale of 1320-2040/-. The Board took a decision on 5.9.94 (vide Annexure-2) to upgrade the pay scale of the Market Supervisor and upgraded their pay scale to 1500-2750/-. The grievance of the petitioners is that they should also be placed in the same scale.
4. The stand of the Board is that the enhancement/upgradation of the pay scale of the Market Supervisor is provisional one subject to the approval of the Public Bureau Enterprises. Up till now the Bureau has not approved the same. The case of the petitioners will be considered after the decision is taken by the Public Bureau Enterprises, It is further stated on behalf of the Board that the petitioners are not entitled to same pay scale as being paid to the Market Supervisors as their duties and functions are different from the Market Supervisors.
5. An intervention petition has been filed by the Market Supervisors and their stand is that their duties and functions are different from the Price Reporters and the Board has rightly upgraded their scale' of pay and the petitioners cannot claim the same benefit as given to them.
6. Thus, from the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the Board has taken two stands. Firstly, that no decision has been taken in the case of the petitioners for upgradation of their scale because up gradation of the pay scale of the Market Supervisors is provisional one and no final decision has been taken as yet by the Public Bureau Enterprises and Secondly, in view of the different nature of functions and duties the petitioners cannot claim the same pay scale as being paid to Market Supervisor. In my view, the stand taken by the Board that the Public Bureau Enterprises is final authority to approve and revise the pay etc. of the employees of the Board is wholly unjustified. The Board is competent to take a final decision. A Division Bench of this Court has already settled the controversy in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Bimal and Ors. v. The Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and others, passed in CWJC No. 2033/89(R) which was disposed of on 9.3.90. This Court held that there is no provision under the Act which empowers the State Govt. to give any direction to the Board either to appoint or not to appoint the person. The Board is not a public undertaking A copy of the said judgment is annexed as Annexure-A to the intervention petition. The said judgment of this Court was upheld in S.L.P by the Apex Court, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B to the said petition. Relying upon the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court a learned Single Judge in the case of Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board Employees Association and Ors. v. Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors. (CWJC No. 4966/87), disposed of on 20.8.91 has held that the Board is competent enough to decide whether the pay scale of a particular category of employees, including the Accountants, in the service of the Board, should be revised or not. This decision has to be taken by the Board itself and no prior approval of the State Govt. will be necessary for that, A copy of the said judgment has been annexed as Annexure-C to the said petition. Thus, in view of the pronouncements of this Court, it is clear that the Board is competent to take a final decision with regard to fixation and revision of the pay scale and the Public Bureau Enterprises which is a wing of the State has no say in the matter. The case of the petitioners is that the Board has not considered their case on the ground that the matter with regard to up gradation of the pay scale of Market Supervisor is pending for approval before Public Bureau Enterprises. As stated above, the Bureau has no say in the matter as such on that ground the Board cannot postpone the consideration of the case of the petitioners for upgradation of the pay scale.
7. Accordingly, the Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter within three months from today. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to claim of the petitioners specially in view of the stand taken by the Board that the petitioners are not discharging the same duties as being performed by the Market Supervisor. It is for the Board to take a decision after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances.
8. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. The interim order stands vacated.