Patna High Court
Jyoti Kumar vs The Bihar State Legislative As on 19 September, 2014
Author: Jayanandan Singh
Bench: Jayanandan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.491 of 2002
===========================================================
1. Jyoti Kumar, son of late Hiralal Verma, resident of Naya Tola, Saristabad, P.S.-
Gardanibagh, District-Patna.
2. Vijay Kumar, son of Sri Baidyanath Prasad, resident of Indirapuri, Raza Bazar,
P.S.-Shastrinagar, District-Patna.
3. Sri Raman Singh, son of Sri Parmanand Singh, resident of Z-5, Officer's Flat,
Shastrinagar, P.S.-Shastrinagar, District-Patna.
4. Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Banwari Prasad, resident of Road No.3, Quarter No.-2,
Gardanibagh, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna.
5. Lala Sachida Nand Sinha, son of late Kedar Lal, resident of Bahadurpur Old,
Rajendra Nagar, Police Station-Sultanganj, District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Arthik Vishayak Cabinet Committee (Cabinet Economic Subject Sub-
Committee) through its Convenor, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
With
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2826 of 2005
===========================================================
Jyoti Kumar, son of late Hiralal Verma, resident of Naya Tola, Saristabad, P.S.-
Gardanibagh, District-Patna, at present Reporter, Bihar Vidhan Sabha, P.S.-
Sachiwalay, District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Legislative Assembly, through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Hon'ble Speaker, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary (Establishment), Bihar Legislative Assembly, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment), Bihar Legislative Assembly, Bihar,
Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No. 491 of 2002)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey
For the State : Mr.S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12.
For Respondent no.4 : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Abhinay Raj, Adv.
For OSD : Mr.S.A.Narain, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Amit Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr.Girish Pandey, Adv.
Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014
2/41
(In CWJC No. 2826 of 2005)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey
For the State : Mr.S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12.
For Respondent no.4 : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Abhinay Raj, Adv.
For OSD :
Mr.S.A.Narain, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Amit Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr.Girish Pandey, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 19-09-2014
The five petitioners of first case, which includes the sole
petitioner of the second case also, are working in the cadre of
reporters in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat (hereinafter
also referred to as 'the Assembly'). They have moved this Court
challenging the Resolution of the Cabinet Sub-Committee for
Economic Affairs (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cabinet Sub-
Committee') in respect of the employees of the Houses of State
Legislature, notified under memo no.3989 dated 04.07.2001 of the
Finance Department, as contained in Annexure-6, by which the pay-
scale of the reporters is said to have been reduced. They have also
prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant Central pay-scale
of Rs.10,000-15,200 to the reporters; Rs.12,000-16500 to the senior
reporters and thereafter promotional pay-scales in terms of the 6th
pay revision with effect from 1.1.1996. Through I.A. No.6347 of
2008 they have also prayed for quashing of the notifications dated
27.08.2003and 17.07.2006 (Annexure-8 and 8/A respectively) of Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 3/41 the Assembly Secretariat notifying revision of their pay-scale in a lower scale. Through another I.A., No.792 of 2014, they have also prayed for quashing of the order of the Speaker dated 08.08.2013 on the file, as contained in Annexure-19, accepting the proposal for rejecting the recommendations of the Finance Department, as contained in Annexure-15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction the pay- scale of Rs.8000-13500 for the reporters, considering the post as technical post not available in the Civil Secretariat of the Government. He has also prayed for a direction for grant of pay- scale to the senior reporters and chief reporter as recommended by the Finance Department through its letter no.8711 dated 19.09.2011, contained in Annexure-15 with I.A. No.5321 of 2012 and implemented in Legislative Council.
2. The sole ground of the petitioners for seeking relief in these writ applications is that in terms of the pay revision the reporters of the Parliament are getting higher pay-scale for identical duties and pay-scale of the reporters of the Bihar Legislative Council (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Council') has also been revised. However, this pay-revision has not been allowed to the reporters of the Assembly and in fact their pay-scale has been reduced to lower level in revision without any rationale, and arbitrarily the same has been denied to them violating their rights guaranteed under Articles Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 4/41 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. Under the Constitutional Scheme Parliament and State legislatures and their offices have been kept out of control of the Government. In Chapter 2 of Part V of the Constitution, separate provisions have been made for setting up of and functioning of the Parliament and in Chapter 3 separate provisions have been made for setting up of and functioning of the State Legislatures. Article 98 lays down that each House of the Parliament shall have its own secretarial staff, whose recruitment and service conditions may be governed by the Rules made by the Parliament, but till then, President, in consultation with the Speaker/Chairman of the respective House, as the case may be, may make rules in that regard. Article 187 of the Constitution lays down similar provisions in respect of separate secretarial staff for each House of the Legislature and similar provisions have been made in respect of framing of rules, governing their recruitment and other service conditions, by the Governor in consultation with the Speaker of the Assembly or Chairman of the Council, as the case may be, for the purpose, till law is made by the Legislature of the State in that regard.
4. In terms of the provisions of the said Article 187, the Governor, in consultation with the Speaker of the Assembly framed Bihar Vidhan Sabha (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as '1964 Rules'), laying down Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 5/41 elaborate provisions in respect of recruitment and service conditions of officers and staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly. The number of permanent posts with designations in the Assembly were specified in the first schedule of the Rules and the pay-scales of the posts were specified in the 2nd schedule. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, Speaker was empowered to amend the first schedule by increasing or reducing the number of posts or by adding thereto any new category of posts in consultation with the Finance Department. Rule 4 provided the method of recruitment and Rule 8 provided for pay attached to each post in the Assembly as set out in the 2nd schedule. Rule 8 contained a proviso also to the effect that, if pay of a post in the Civil Secretariat, corresponding to a post of any category of the posts mentioned in the 2nd schedule, was revised by the Government, such revision was to be deemed to apply to the post of corresponding category in the Assembly also. Rule 9 provided other conditions of service in respect of officers for whom there was no specific provisions in the Rules. It was made clear that such officers shall be governed by such rule, orders or directions as applicable to the officers of the corresponding rank in the Civil Secretariat of the Government, subject to such modification, variation and exception, if any, in such rule, as the Speaker may make after consultation with the Finance Department by specific order. Rule 10 vested with the Speaker power to relax any rule or provision, in consultation with Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 6/41 the Finance Department, in respect of an officer, in just and equitable manner if it caused undue hardship in that particular case. Rule 20 contained residuary powers of the Speaker, subject to Rule 9, and laid down that all matters not specifically provided for in the Rules, whether incidentally or ancillary or otherwise, were to be regulated in accordance with such orders, as Speaker, from time to time, may make. Thus, it is clear that though the 1964 Rules did contain detailed provisions in connection with recruitment, service conditions and disciplinary control of the staff and officers of the Assembly, but the Speaker was vested with overriding powers to issue such orders or directions or specify such modification, variation or exception in provisions of the Rules or in the matters not covered by it, or relax a particular rule in consultation with the Finance Department, as he may consider necessary.
5. Coming to the present case, to appreciate the facts, it is appropriate for this Court to first take notice of the relevant documents available on records in chronological order, which may appear to be having some bearing on the issue raised before this Court. The first document to be noticed is a copy of the gazette notification, on the records of first case, dated 15.11.1975 marked as Annexure-R-4/A, which contains amendments in the first schedule of 1964 Rules made by the Speaker, in exercise of his powers under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, in consultation with the Finance Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 7/41 Department, by which 18 posts of reporters in the category of class- II gazetted officers were created in the Assembly and corresponding amendment was made in the second schedule, prescribing pay-scale of Rs.580-840 for the said newly created posts of reporters.
6. The next document in chronology is a copy of a letter of the Finance Department dated 30.05.1979 addressed to the Accountant General, marked as Annexure-2 at page 24 with the writ application, by which it was informed that, as per the recommendations of the Third Pay Revision Committee and Resolution No.14636 dated 30.11.1972, the reporters of the Assembly and Council have been allowed pay-scale of Rs.580-840 and the senior reporters have been allowed pay-scale of Rs.640-940, which, after full consideration, has been decided to be upgraded to Rs.890-1415. The pay in this revised scale was to be determined in terms of Rule 78(A)(1) of the Bihar Service Code and provisions of the said Resolution no.14636 dated 30.02.1972 of the Finance Department was to continue to be applicable. This order was to take effect from 01.04.1979. Then Annexure-9 is an extract of the report of the Pay Revision Committee in respect of Department of Parliamentary Affairs and shows that the representations of the reporters of the Assembly and the Council were considered and recommendations were made for revision of their pay-scale to Rs.1000-1820. Thereafter Annexure-3 is a copy of the gazette Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 8/41 notification dated 14.02.1996, containing a Resolution of the Finance Department implementing the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted in connection with recommendations of the Fitment-cum-Fifth Pay Revision Committee. In this Resolution revised pay-scale of the reporters was shown as Rs.2200-4000, with junior selection grade scale as Rs.3000-4500. It appears that, accordingly an advertisement was issued on 17.09.1997, vide Annexure-R-4/E series, by the Assembly, inviting applications, inter alia, for the post of reporters in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000. A copy of another advertisement dated 03.05.2001 of the Assembly is also in the series by which, inter alia, the post of reporters was advertised in the scale of Rs.6500-10500. One copy of another advertisement no.7/12 published on 26.09.2012 inviting applications for six vacancies of grade-II reporters in the pay band II, 9300- 34800 with grade pay Rs.4200 is also attached. A copy of the letter of the In-charge Joint Secretary of the Assembly to the Accountant General dated 20.12.1997 is Annexure-1 with the writ application, informing about reorganization of reporters' cadre with 17 (instead of 18) posts of reporters in the pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000; 5 posts of junior selection grade in the pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500; 3 posts of senior selection grade in the pay-scale of Rs.3700-5000 and one post of super time scale with pay-scale of Rs.4100-5300.
7. It appears that the Fitment Committee, constituted by Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 9/41 Annexure-4 dated 19.01.1998, submitted its report, in the light of which the State Government issued Resolution no.660F(2) dated 08.02.1999 for grant of revision of pay-scale to the State Government employees, but it did not suggest any revised pay-scale for Assembly employees in view of Article 187(3) of the Constitution. Hence, in this background, a high level meeting was held on 24.08.2000, under the chairmanship of Speaker, in which it was decided to prepare a memorandum recommending for revised pay-scales for Assembly employees in reference to said Resolution dated 08.02.1999, and was sent to the Additional Secretary, Department of Finance for consideration by Cabinet. Hence, such memorandum was prepared (Annexure-5) from which it appears that, in respect of most of the posts, which had equivalence under the government, revised pay-scales allowed to the Government employees were accepted by the Assembly for its employees also. However, posts of which there were no equivalence in the Government, including the post of reporters, were dealt with separately and for them the revised pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500, as replacement scale of Rs.2200-4000 was not accepted on the ground that it was technical post which was not available in Civil Secretariat and the post was only in Parliament whose old scale was Rs.3000- 4500. It appears that this memorandum was sent to the Finance Department. However, the Minister, Finance, through a letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 10/41 09.03.2001, vide Annexure-R-4/D with the reply of respondent no.4 to the rejoinder of petitioner, informed the Secretary of the Assembly that, in respect of approval of revision of pay-scales of Assembly employees, it was the Cabinet Sub-Committee which was entrusted with the responsibility. Hence, the Finance Department was not in a position to take any decision from its own level. It appears that, soon thereafter, the Cabinet Sub-Committee held its meeting on 19.04.2001, vide Annexure-6, in which it was decided that it would be better to take a decision in the matters of pay revision of employees of both the Houses in accordance with the recommendations of the Fitment Committee for personnel of Civil Secretariat, taking into account the Legislative Assembly/Council Employees Service Conditions Rules, 1965 (?). It took into account the recommendations of the Assembly in respect of proposed revised pay-scale of the reporters of the Basic Grade, Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade, which were Rs.8000-13500, 10000- 15200 and 12000-16500 respectively, and recorded its comments that there shall be no post of under secretary, deputy secretary in the cadre of reporters, and provisions for selection grade post had ended. Hence, it, with change of nomenclature recommended the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 for reporters; Rs.8000-13500 for senior reporters and Rs.10000-15200 for chief reporter. It also recommended that in both the Secretariats there will be one post of chief reporter, four Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 11/41 posts of senior reporters, who will be given the designation and pay- scale in accordance with the seniority from amongst the existing reporters. It appears that this recommendation of the Cabinet Sub- Committee was approved by the Chief Minister and accordingly the Finance Department, through its letter dated 07.07.2001, as contained in Annexure-A with the counter affidavit of respondent no.4 filed on 02.12.2008, Secretary of the Assembly was informed about it with request to obtain approval of the Speaker and for issue of orders with intimation to the Department. The Secretary of the Assembly, in reply, through his letter dated 06.11.2002, vide Annexure-B with the said counter affidavit, informed the Finance Commissioner that, pending recommendation of the Parliamentary Pay Committee, constituted under the notification of the Assembly dated 06.11.2002, and its approval by the Speaker, the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee for Economic Affairs shall, in exclusion of the previously appointed and promoted officers, be applicable on provisional basis in respect of employees of Class I, II and III. It appears that finally the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee were taken into account, and under the orders of the Speaker, notification dated 27.08.2003, as contained in Annexure-8 with the I.A. No.6347/08 of the petitioners, was issued revising the pay-scales, inter alia, of the reporters from Rs.2200- 3800 to 6500-10500 with effect from 01.01.1996.
Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 12/41
8. Thereafter, leaving out the representations filed in between before the Chief Minister, the Governor and the Speaker, the next document on record is a note sheet of some file from 12.10.2006 to 04.04.2008, as contained in Annexure-R-4/C of the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no.4 and also Annexure-18 with the rejoinder of the petitioners, which shows that a note was put up for consideration of the Speaker on the representation of the petitioners complaining some anomalies in the revised pay-scale introduced for the senior reporters and chief reporter. A Gazette Notification dated 17.01.2009, issued by the Finance Department, which has been brought on record by the petitioners as Annexure-13 with the rejoinder filed by them to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent nos.2 and 3, shows that the State Government had fixed the basic pay for six premier services as Rs.8000-13500 with grade pay of Rs.5400 with effect from 01.01.2006. The services in respect of whom this basic pay was introduced were Bihar Administrative Service, Bihar Police Service, Bihar Finance Service, Bihar Health Service, Bihar Engineering Service and Bihar Veterinary Service. Annexure-14 thereafter is an advertisement issued by the Parliament Secretariat calling for applications for the post of Parliamentary Reporters in the pay-scale of Rs.10000-15200 plus Rs.2000 as special allowance. Annexure-15 with I.A. No.5321/12 of the petitioners, is letter no.8711 dated 19.09.2011 of a Joint Secretary of Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 13/41 the Finance Department to the Secretary of the Assembly and of the Council. Through this letter it was informed that the pay-scales of reporters, senior reporters and chief reporter, made effective from 01.01.1996 in the light of the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub- Committee, was revised but it appeared that promotional pay-scale for the cadre of reporters were less than the other cadres, citing a specific example of personal assistants. Hence, it was recommended that in respect of senior reporters and chief reporter upward revision to Rs.10000-15200 and 12000-16500 with effect from 01.01.1996 may be considered. However, in this letter the revision with effect from 01.01.1996 was recommended only for senior reporters and chief reporter. This recommendation of the Finance Department appears to have been approved by the Chairman of the Bihar Legislative Council and accordingly, under the letter of In-charge Secretary of the Council dated 17.10.2011, as contained in Annexure-16 with the same I.A., the Chief Accountant General was informed about the same. When said recommendation of the Finance Department was implemented in the Council, the petitioners again filed their representations before the In-charge Secretary of the Assembly for implementing it in their cases also. It appears that while the matter remained pending for consideration by the Speaker, under his orders, a reclassification of the post of reporter cadre was communicated to the Accountant General through letter dated Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 14/41 29.08.2012 with revision of pay-scale, vide Annexure-A with the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no.4 filed on 15.10.2012. From this letter it appears that 13 posts of reporters were identified as in the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 with revised pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay of Rs.4200, four posts of senior reporters in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 with revised pay- scale of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay of Rs.5400 and one post of chief reporter, equivalent to deputy secretary in the scale of Rs.10000-15200 with revised pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay of Rs.6600. However, by correction letter dated 23.11.2012, vide Annexure-20 with I.A. No.792/14, the expression "अवर स�चव के समक�" mentioned in the said letter dated 29.08.2012 under expression "मुख्य प्र�तवेदक" was removed. From the notings of the files, produced on the records of the case as Annexures-19 and 21 by the petitioners with the I.A.No.792 of 2014, it appears that the proposal of the Finance Department, made through its said letter dated 19.09.2011, which was accepted by the Chairman of the Council, was not approved by the Speaker of the Assembly. The notings of the Deputy Secretary dated 08.08.2013 available at page 244 of the brief of the first case is indicative of the facts on which the Speaker of the Assembly had agreed not to implement the recommendations of Finance Department made through the said Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 15/41 letter dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-15).
9. With CWJC No.2826/05 some letters, notifications etc., in respect of the petitioner of the writ application, are available, to show that he was allowed time bound promotions, but the same, in his respect as well as others, were withdrawn with grant of revision of pay-scale and some of the reporters were later on promoted to the pay-scale of Rs.10000-15200 with posting on the post of Deputy Secretary.
10. Another set of documents, which are on record of the first case, are not directly related with the issue of fixation of pay-scale of the reporters of the Assembly. But from them picture emerges of creation of a post of Officer-on-Special Duty on 09.01.2008, initially for three years, and thereafter appointment against the post, after inviting applications, of one Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat, vide notification dated 02.07.2008. The documents show that since then he has been retained in the Assembly by grant of extension to him on the post from time to time with enhancement of upper age limit also for the post. This picture emerges, not from the documents produced on record by the petitioner, rather from the documents produced by the respondent no.4, the Secretary of the Assembly, through his supplementary counter affidavit, which was filed on 13th September, 2013 in the case in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 29.08.2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 16/41
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed his written arguments also, in which he has dealt with different documents placed on record and noticed by this Court earlier. He has referred to the said Annexure-5, the memorandum (संलेख) issued under the signature of Secretary of the Assembly, pursuant to the decision of High Level Committee in its meeting held on 24.08.2000 in the chamber of the Speaker for implementation of pay revision in the Assembly Secretariat in the light of resolution of the State Government contained in letter no.660(F) (2) dated 08.02.1999. He has also referred to Annexure-6, the resolution of the Cabinet Sub- Committee changing the nomenclature and recommending their pay- scale on its own as Rs. Rs.6500-10500 for reporters; Rs.8000-13500 for senior reporters and Rs.10000-15200 for chief reporters. In the written arguments, learned counsel has also raised propriety of introducing pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 in the cadre of reporter after basic pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 and has stated that in the Parliament, after 5th pay revision, the existing pay-scale was Rs.10000-15200. It is also stated that, prior to the 4th pay revision, the reporters of the Assembly were having higher pay-scale than the reporters of the Parliament, but later on, after introduction of the 4th pay revision, the same has been reduced. It also stated that technical qualification for the post of reporters in the Assembly is higher than Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 17/41 the technical qualification of the post of reporter of the Parliament as stated in the I.A.No.6347/08 and noticed by this Court in the order dated 02.11.2010. It has been asserted that after the pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 the next higher scale is Rs.10000-15200 and Rs.12000-16500, but, for reasons unknown, the respondents have introduced pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 in between. The stand of the respondents in the affidavits has been noticed by him that the final decision and opinion or the advice is still awaited and no sooner the same is received, it will be considered. It has been stated that the recommendations of the Finance Department (Annexure-15) was accepted by the Chairman of the Council, whereas the same has been rejected by the Speaker of the Assembly for no cogent reasons. It is stated that proposal of the Finance Department has been rejected by the Speaker only on the ground that grant of pay-scales to the reporters, as recommended, may lead to dissatisfaction amongst other employees of the Assembly. It is stated that this was a deliberate attempt by an officer of the Assembly to mislead the Speaker as no other claim of any other category of employee was pending. It is stated that Annexure-15, was issued under the orders of the highest authorities, after due deliberation and after detailed consideration of all the facts and circumstances, which is reflected from the expression "�नद�शानुसार" used at the beginning itself. It is Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 18/41 stated in the written argument that if the pay-scale as proposed by the Finance Department through Annexure-15 is accepted by the Assembly the petitioners will be satisfied and will not have any more grievances. It is also stated that the hostile discrimination in the matters of fixation of pay-scale for the post with identical work is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of these submissions in the written arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Indu Lal [2002 (3) PLJR 68 (SC)] and Union of India Vs. Union of India Vs. P.V. Hariharan [(1997) 3 SCC 568] and it submitted that if hostile discrimination is meted out in fixation of pay-scale, remedy is available to an aggrieved party before the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226.
12. A synopsis and brief notes on behalf of respondent no.4 has also been filed in the case. After giving brief facts, it is stated in the notes that recommendation of the Finance Department was rejected by the Assembly, vide Annexure-5, on the ground that higher scale proposed by the Finance Department for Reporters was replacement scale of Rs.3000-4500, whereas the reporters in the Assembly were getting Rs.2200-4000. Thereafter, the Cabinet Sub- Committee also considered the representations of the reporters, and resolved to grant revised pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500; Rs.8000- 13500 and Rs.10000-15200 to the reporters, senior reporters and Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 19/41 chief reporters respectively, vide Annexure-6. It is stated that, it is an accepted position that in the matters of fixation of pay-scales and service conditions of employees of Legislature, Finance Department is not competent to take any decision. The Finance Department can only make recommendations and refer the matter to the Cabinet Sub-Committee and, as per the Rules, final decision lies with the Speaker of the Assembly only. It is stated that time to time advertisements have been issued for filling up the vacant sanctioned posts of reporters with admissible pay-scale which have not been challenged by the petitioners. It is stated that Annexure-15 cannot confer any right upon the petitioners for grant of pay-scale recommended, as the same was in the teeth of earlier orders/decisions. It is stated that a comprehensive proposal was prepared by the respondent no.4 for review of pay-scale of class-IV posts of the Assembly and was sent for approval to the Finance Department. However, no approval has been accorded thereto and as such the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the Speaker by order dated 08.08.2013. It is also stated that duties and responsibilities of the petitioners cannot be compared with that of the reporters of the Parliament and their qualifications are also different. It is stated that it is in the exclusive domain of an employer to determine and grant pay-scale to the employees and the Court should not ordinarily determine the issue in exercise of its powers Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 20/41 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this submission reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of P. Savita Vs. Union of India [1985 Suppl. SCC 85], Surendra Paswan Vs. The State of Bihar [2003(1) PLJR 661 (S.C.)], Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279] and Union of India Vs. Hiranmoy Sen [(2008) 1 SCC 630].
13. So far as allegations of the petitioners, raised against one Under-Secretary/OSD of Assembly Secretariat of having influenced the decision of the Speaker and having given a misleading note leading to the orders of the Speaker dated 08.08.2013, is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioners have not laid down specific foundational facts or placed sufficient materials on record to persuade this Court to go into that issue. They have also not made the concerned Under-Secretary as a party respondent in this writ application by name. Hence, this allegation of having influenced the Speaker inducing him to take decision in a particular way, verging on bias and malafide on the part of the said Under-Secretary, is not required to be considered by this Court. However, from the documents available on record, especially with the said supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4, in the light of the orders of this Court dated 29.08.2013, a picture does emerge that all steps, out of the way, have been taken by the Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 21/41 respondents with a purpose to retain the said Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat in the Assembly after his initial appointment, upon his retirement, on a newly created post of Officer-on-Special Duty. For this he has been granted repeated extensions and the upper age limit for holding the post has also been extended to 70 years. This does give an impression to this Court that the said Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat is being treated as favourite officer in the Assembly and indispensable. However this cannot lead to anywhere, unless and until a case of personal malafide and bias would have been set up by the petitioners against him and would have been proved.
14. Apart from praying for quashing of Annexure-6, Annexure-8 & 8/1 with I.A.No.6347/08 and Annexure-19 with I.A. No.792/14, learned counsel for the petitioners has also prayed for certain directions, in alternative to each other. The first direction he has sought for is to grant/fix pay-scale of the petitioners in terms of 5th pay revision with effect from 01.01.1996, at par with the pay- scale of the reporters in the Parliament. In the alternative he has prayed that the revised pay-scales of the petitioners be fixed in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 as recommended through Resolution No.660 F (2) dated 08.02.1999 by the Finance Department, but not accepted by the Assembly. In the alternative he has also prayed that the recommendations made by the Finance Department through Annexure-15, and accepted by the Council, should be implemented Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 22/41 by the Assembly also.
15. So far as first prayer is concerned, for getting a direction to fix pay-scales of the reporters of the Assembly at par with the reporters of the Parliament, learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' and has claimed that the petitioners' work as reporters of the Assembly is more onerous, requiring more skill and higher qualifications. For this he has referred to paragraph 17 of the writ application wherein it is stated that, for reporters of the Assembly, a minimum qualification of graduation is required with shorthand speed of 150-180 wpm in Hindi and 100 wpm in English, whereas for reporters of the Parliament, apart from the qualification of graduation, shorthand speed of 160 wpm in Hindi and English is required. This has been denied in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and it is stated that the work of reporters of the Parliament and that of the reporters of the Assembly are not identical and the duties and responsibilities of the reporters of the Parliament are more strenuous. Learned counsel has also referred to extract of report of the 4th Pay Revision Committee, annexed as Annexure-9 with I.A.No.6347/08. In this extract of the report, it was noticed that the Assembly and the Council has its own officers and staff and they are not government employees. The Committee in this extract has considered the representation of the reporters of the Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 23/41 Assembly and Council and found that the posts were initially created in 1969 with pay-scale of Rs.580-840 which was, for some reasons, was recommended to be revised to Rs.890-1415 through the Finance Department letter dated 30.05.1979, available on record as Annexure-2 with the writ application. This extract of the report mentions that after careful consideration of the nature of the duties, proficiency and other relevant factors, and also keeping in view the pattern of pay-scales prevailing for their counterparts in the Parliament, recommendation was being made for revision of their pay-scale to Rs.1000-1820 with 20% of the posts in selection grade and 10% in further higher pay-scale, but without any entitlement to the special pay. Except this, petitioners have not brought on record any material to show that the duties and responsibilities of the reporters of the Assembly were exactly same and identical to the duties and responsibilities of reporters of the Parliament. Moreover the matter of grant of pay-scale and payment of salary is a matter between the employer and the employee. Hence, merely on the ground that some employee, under some different employer, performing similar or identical duties, is getting higher pay, does not make another employee, working under a different employer, entitled for the same pay-scale. This can neither be claimed as a legal nor as a statutory right. If the employers are different, no employee can claim equality in matters of pay or service conditions Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 24/41 vis-à-vis employee of some different employer. Therefore, this prayer of the petitioners does not have merits.
16. So far as their prayer for grant of pay-scales of Rs.8000- 13500 is concerned, it has to be noticed that, in the beginning, posts of reporters were created in the Assembly Secretariat, by the amendment in the second schedule of the 1964 Rules by the notification (Annexure-R/4-A), as published in the extraordinary gazette of the State dated 19.11.1975, in the pay-scale of Rs.580-
840. In fact, in this amendment, section officers, senior personal assistants, superintendent, dispatch section and reporters were clubbed together and placed in that pay-scale. In 1979 through a letter no.3015 (Annexure-2), Finance Department, in view of Third Pay Revision Committee Report, appears to have recommended to the Accountant General for up-gradation of pay-scales of Reporters and Selection Grade Reporter of the Assembly and Council to Rs.890-1415. But whether this recommendation had the concurrence of the Speaker of the Assembly and Chairman of the Council or not, or whether it was approved later on by them or not, is not clear and there is no material on record to show that this upgraded pay-scale was ever implemented. The recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, as contained in Annexure-9 has already been considered above. Whether said recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, for revision of the pay-scales of the reporters Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 25/41 of the Legislature to Rs.1000-1820 etc., was ever considered and accepted, or not, is also not clear.
17. After this report there is a gap, and the next document in connection with revision and fixation of pay-scale of reporters is Annexure-3, which appears to be a resolution issued by the Finance Department on 08.02.1996, in the light of the recommendations of the Fitment-cum-Fifth Pay Revision Committee, and published in the extraordinary gazette of State on 14.02.1996. From this Annexure-3 it appears that the pay-scale of the reporters was revised from 2000-3800 to 2200-4000 and that of the junior selection grade to Rs.3000-4500. This appears to have been accepted by the Speaker as in the letter issued by the Assembly Secretariat to the Accountant General dated 20.12.1997 (Annexure-1), by which conversion of the post were introduced and informed, pay-scale of 17 posts of Reporters is shown as Rs.2200-4000; that of five posts of Junior Selection Grade as Rs.3000-4500, that of three posts of senior selection grade as Rs.3700-5000 and that of one post of super time scale post as Rs.4100-5300. The respondents have not claimed before this Court also that this fixation was incorrect.
18. It appears that, to introduce the pay revision, State Government had also constituted a Fitment Committee. This Fitment Committee gave its report. In the report, it dealt with pay-scales of employees of the Assembly and Council also, and recommended pay Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 26/41 revision in their respect also. The report of the Fitment Committee was considered by the Government and Finance Department issued the Resolution no. 660 F (2) dated 08.02.1999, recommending for revised pay-scales across the board. Although, in respect of Government employees, this amounted to final decision of the Government in respect of the revision of their pay-scales, but, since as per the constitutional provisions, the Secretariat of the Assembly had an independent existence and, as per the 1964 Rules, the Speaker had the last say in fixation of pay-scale and service conditions of the employees and officers working there, the said Resolution, so far it recommended the revision of pay-scales of the staff and the officers of the Assembly Secretariat were concerned, required approval by the Speaker. Hence, it appears that the said Resolution was forwarded for his consideration. On receipt of the said Resolution, Speaker constituted a High Level Committee which held its deliberations on 24.08.2000 on the recommendations made in the said Resolution. After deliberation, memorandum (संलेख) was prepared, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application, which shows that in respect of almost all the employees of Assembly, the recommendations were accepted. However, in respect of the reporters, revised replacement scale of Rs.8000-13500, recommended by the Fitment Committee and accepted by the Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 27/41 Government, was not accepted on the ground that the post was a technical post and it had no equivalence in the Civil Secretariat and for such post in Parliament the old scale was Rs.3000-4500. Hence, the revised scale of Rs.8000-13500 could not be given to the Reporters of the Assembly. In this memorandum no other revised pay-scale was suggested for the reporters. It appears that the matter was considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee also in its meeting dated 19.04.2001 (Annexure-6) and it recommended revised pay- scale Rs.6500-10500 for reporters; Rs.8000-13500 for senior reporters and Rs.10000-15200 for chief reporters, which perhaps got approved by the Chief Minister also. Hence, through letter dated 07.07.2001 of the Finance Department, (Annexure-A with the counter affidavit of respondent no.4) the same was forwarded to the Speaker for approval and issue of necessary orders. On receipt of the said letter dated 07.07.2001, a Parliamentary Pay Committee was constituted by the Speaker through notification no. 1271 dated 06.11.2002 for consideration and, through letter dated 06.11.2002 (Annexure-B), Finance Commissioner was informed that, pending recommendation of the said Committee and its approval by the Speaker said revised pay-scales was to come into operation on provisional basis, in exclusion of already appointed and promoted employees. This shows that whatever may be the recommendation, the same was not applicable to the petitioners, who were working in Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 28/41 the Assembly from before. Finally a notification was issued by the Assembly Secretariat on 27.08.2003 (Annexure-8), introducing the revision of pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996, by which the reporters were given replacement scale of Rs.6500-13500. The vacancies available were thereafter advertised also.
19. Now what falls for consideration at this stage is the rejection of the recommendations contained in Resolution no.660F(2) dated 08.02.1999 of the Finance Department, for revision of pay-scale of the Reporters from earlier scale of Rs.2200- 4000 to 8000-13500, by the High power Committee constituted by the Speaker in its meeting held on 24.08.2000 (Annexure-5) on the ground that it was a technical post and its equivalent post was available only in Parliament of which old pay-scale was Rs.3000- 4500. This decision of the High Power Committee was approved by the Speaker. On its own this rationale cannot be found fault with it. But what has to be noticed is that the many officers of different cadre working in the Assembly, who were drawing the unrevised scale of Rs.2000-3800, and who had no equivalence in the Civil Secretariat, were also recommended and also given the revised pay- scale of Rs.8000-13500. For this, Speaker had asked for recommendations of two senior deputy-secretaries and had accepted their recommendations. This revision of pay-scale in their cases was accepted by the said High Level Committee at least in case of four Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 29/41 category of staff and officers of the Assembly, who also did not had equivalence in the Civil Secretariat and who were admittedly in the lower unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2000-3800 and also in the case of one Marshal who was in unrevised scale of Rs.2200-4000, like the reporters. But in the case of reporters, who were in the unrevised scale of Rs.2200-4000, and also had no equivalence in the Civil Secretariat, objection was raised in grant of revised pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 taking note of unrevised pay-scale of Rs.3000-4500 of reporters of Parliament. But here it is relevant to mention that in the said Annexure-5 itself, for the post of Deputy Secretary, which was in unrevised scale of Rs.3000-4500, revised scale of Rs.10000- 15200, as in the Civil Secretariat was approved. The affidavits of the respondents do not give any rationale for this. Here this Court would like to point out that it would be evident from Annexure-3, the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 08.02.1996, published in the Gazette on 14.02.1996, by which the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee were implemented, that the earlier pay-scale of the reporters, Rs.2000-3800, was recommended to be upgraded to Rs.2200-4000. There is no dispute that this upgradation in their pay-scale was accepted by the Speaker and implemented. Now in the backdrop of this upgradation of their pay- scale from Rs.2000-3800 to Rs.2200-4000, this Court fails to appreciate as to why revision of their pay-scale from Rs.2200-4000 Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 30/41 to Rs.8000-13500 was objected, when the revision of pay-scale of other category of staff and officers (having no equivalence in Civil Secretariat) of the Assembly, from Rs.2000-3800 and Rs.2200-4000 to Rs.8000-13500 was approved by the Speaker. From Annexure-6, it appears that the matter was thereafter considered by the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 19.04.2001 and it proposed revised pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 for reporters; Rs.8000-13500 for senior reporters and Rs.10000-15200 for chief reporter. This was forwarded to the Assembly and was finally accepted and notification dated 27.08.2003, as contained in Annexure-8, was issued. This notification is also a glaring example of disparity meted out to the reporters of the Assembly, by which they were granted revised pay- scale of Rs.6500-10500, whereas large number of other category of employees, mentioned in the notification, getting much lower unrevised pay-scale, were also placed in the same revised pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500. A few glaring examples from Annexure-8 are of section officer, placed in the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2000-2500; public relation officer placed in the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2000- 2800; deputy secretary placed in the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2000- 2800; senior personal assistants placed in the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500, who were all given revised pay-scale of Rs.6500- 10500, whereas the reporters, whose unrevised pay-scale was higher to all of them, i.e. Rs.2200-3800 (wrongly for 4000?) were also Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 31/41 given revised pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 only.
20. From the documents available on record it appears that the petitioners filed representations before the Governor, Chief Minister and Speaker also, which apparently gave rise to fresh consideration at different levels. The matter remained pending for quite some time and, as would be evident from a letter of the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department dated 19.09.2011, vide Annexure-15, addressed to the Secretary of the Assembly and the Council, the decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 19.04.2001 (Annexure-6) was re-examined by the Finance Department, and it was found that the pay-scale of the personal assistants was Rs.5500-9000 and first promotional scale was Rs.6500-10500 and the second promotional scale was Rs.10000- 15200, whereas the pay-scale of senior reporters was Rs.8000- 13500. It was mentioned in the letter that, on comparison, it was clear that the pay-scale of the cadre of reporter was less than the promotional pay-scale of personal assistants. Hence, in the letter it was proposed that the correction be made in the pay-scale of senior reporters with effect from 01.01.1996 and they should be allowed the pay-scale of Rs.10000-15200 in place of Rs.8000-13500 and the Chief Reporter should be allowed pay-scale of Rs.12000-16500 in place of Rs.10000-15200.
21. An objection has been raised by the respondents against Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 32/41 this document. Their stand is that this letter was issued by the Joint Secretary from his own level and it had no concurrence or approval of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department. But in this respect, the stand of the petitioners appears to be correct as the letter starts with expression '�नद�शानुसार' which prima facie, and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, shows that this proposal or suggestion had the concurrence of the competent authority of the Finance Department on file. Moreover, from the other letters of the Finance Department, available on record, this Court finds that the expression '�नद�शानुसार' has been used invariably in all of them. This Court finds that the Under Secretary in his note dated 08.08.2013, as contained in Annexure-19, has also referred this letter as letter of the Finance Department.
22. This letter (Annexure-15) is addressed to both, the Secretary of the Assembly as well as to the Secretary of the Council. Annexure-16 is the letter of the working Secretary of the Council dated 17.10.2011, addressed to the Accountant General, which shows that the said proposal of the Finance Department, through the said letter of the Joint Secretary, was approved by the Chairman of the Council. Thus, so far as pay-scales of at least the senior reporters and chief reporter, working in the Council, are concerned the same stood corrected and upgraded with effect from 01.01.1996. Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 33/41 However, the said letter of the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department remained unconsidered in the Assembly for quite some time. In the meanwhile, reclassification was done of the cadre of the reporters working in the Assembly. Through the letter of the in- charge Secretary of the Assembly dated 29.08.2012 the Accountant General was informed about the existing pay-scales of the reporters, senior reporters and chief reporter and the corresponding revised pay-scale, vide Annexure-A with the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no.4 filed on 15.10.2012. This letter of the In-charge Secretary shows that till then the recommendations of the Finance Department, through said letter of the joint Secretary, was not taken note of by the Assembly. The petitioners have questioned the mention of the existing pay-scale of the reporters as Rs.6500- 10500 in the said letter and the respondents in reply have placed reliance on the Resolution of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 19.04.2001 (Annexure-6) and its forwarding by the Finance Department to the Secretary of the Assembly through letter dated 07.07.2001 mentioning the approval of the Chief Minister, to justify the mention of the said existing pay-scale in the said letter dated 29.08.2012. From the note-sheet of the file, annexed as Annexure-19 with I.A.No.792/14 and also Annexure R-4/F to the supplementary counter affidavit, shows that finally the said letter of the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department dated 19.09.2011 was Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 34/41 considered in the Assembly. From the note-sheet available on the brief at page 244/333 it appears that an Under Secretary of the Assembly dealt with different decisions and communications in respect of the pay-fixation of the cadre of reporters in the Assembly as kept on the file at different flags. The decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 19.04.2001 was noticed and it was noticed that it had approved the pay-scales of reporters, senior reporters and chief reporter as Rs.6500-10500, Rs.8000-13500 and Rs.10000- 15200 respectively. The subsequent reclassification by the Assembly was also noticed and thereafter, the solitary comment against acceptance of said proposal of the Finance Department, contained in the said letter of the Joint Secretary, was that, in the event of up- gradation of pay-scale of only reporters' cadre, there would be a lot of dissatisfaction among the Assembly staff. Hence he recommended that order may be obtained from the Speaker for not implementing the said proposal of the Finance Department, through the said letter of the Joint Secretary. The exact expression used by the under Secretary in the noting is as follows :-
" इस प्रकार सभा स�चवालय के एकमात्र प्र�तवेदक संवगर् के वेतनमान को उत्क्र�मत �कए जाने के फलस्वरूप सभा स�चवालय के क�मर्य� म� काफ� असंतोष व्याप्त होगा।"
23. This, Court in spite of careful reading of the said noting, does not find any other rationale or ground mentioned by the Under Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 35/41 Secretary in his note for his suggestion to get an order of the Speaker rejecting the said proposal of the Finance Department through the said letter of the Joint Secretary. The said page of the note-sheet shows that the file passed through different higher authorities, and on the same day Speaker approved it only with an initial. Though the petitioners have not specifically pleaded that the said noting was of the said Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat, but if it is, then the charges of the some vested interest or bias working against the legitimate claims of the reporters and the Speaker having been mislead because of that, may have some substance, particularly in the background of the fact that documents available on record show that the said Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat, after being appointed as OSD on newly created post for three years, got extensions twice and the upper age limit for the post was extended to 70 years, obviously to retain him further.
24. Intelligence and competence of a person may make him very useful and indispensable at times. If this intelligence and competence is coupled with positive approach in life and in functioning, it may create wonders. However, if this intelligence and competence of the person concerned is overshadowed by his negative approach in life and functioning it can cause havoc. The more one rises to a higher post and authority, he is saddled with more and more responsibility to act judiciously, objectively and in Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 36/41 public good. The more he rises higher, his basic approach in functioning becomes more and more important and his intelligence and competence become supplemental factors of his personality. Be he a head of an administrative department or of an institution or of a statutory authority or of an autonomous body of a government or of any wing of the State, his basic approach in his day to day functioning and his approach in addressing issues coming before him becomes much more important for the efficient functioning of the organization/office he heads and the public purpose it subserves, than his abstract intelligence and knowledge. It cannot be disputed that any person assuming such a responsibility has to be very careful and cautious in his approach in addressing issues before him as by one stroke of pen injustice may be caused to several and hundreds of persons may get denied their legitimate due and their rights, otherwise flowing from the relevant laws, or on the other hand hundreds may get wrongly benefited for which they may not be entitled at all in law.
25. After analysis of the entire documents placed on record, this Court now finds that through the memorandum of the Assembly Secretariat, contained in Annexure-5, first wrong was caused to the reporters of the Assembly. By an earlier decision of the Pay Committee their pay-scale had been upgraded from Rs.2000-3800 to 2200-4000, but while granting the revised pay-scale through the said Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 37/41 memorandum, from the unrevised pay-scale of Rs.2200-4000 they were denied the revised pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500 though the section officers, public relation officer, additional private secretaries (in the cadre of assistants) and the Superintendent of Library, drawing their salary in the existing scale of Rs.2000-3800 (that is lower than the scale of the reporters) were allowed pay revision in the scale of Rs.8000-13500. The proceeding of the Sub-Committee dated 19.04.2001 shows that, in view of the said objection of the Assembly, reporters were allowed revision in the scale of Rs.6500- 10500 only and scale of Rs.8000-13500 was allowed to the senior reporters and the scale of Rs.10000-15200 was allowed to the chief reporter. The complete proceeding of the Cabinet Sub-Committee dated 19.04.2001 is not available on record to enable this Court to verify as to whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee proposed any change in the revised pay-scales of the administrative officer, public relation officer, additional private secretary and the Superintendent of Library at a lower scale, in view of the proposed scale of Rs.6500-10500 for the reporters, or not. The reporters of the Assembly were naturally aggrieved and filed this writ application in the Court on 09.01.2002. After filing of the writ application, the second wrong was caused to them when by the notification of the Assembly dated 27.08.2003 posts with much lower unrevised pay- scale were put at par with them in the matter of revision, ignoring Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 38/41 their case for proportionate higher revised pay-scale. Since then the writ application has remained pending and subsequent developments appearing from the documents placed on record have been noticed by this Court.
26. This Court has noticed that the Finance Department through Annexure-15 had proposed for up-gradation of pay-scale of the senior reporters and the chief reporter. For this, in the letter, the reasons assigned was that the private secretaries had the basic scale of Rs.5500-9000 and their first promotion was to the scale of Rs.6500-10500 and second promotion was to Rs.10000-15200, whereas the reporters having the basic scale of Rs.6500-10500 have been allowed scale of Rs.8000-13500 only. Thus, it is apparent that, through the said letter, pay parity between the employees of the different cadre of the Assembly was suggested. The Chairman of the Council appreciated it and accepted the proposal. But from Annexure-19, the notings of the under Secretary, it is apparent that he suggested rejection of the proposal only on the ground that it may cause serious dissatisfaction among the employees of the Assembly, which was accepted by the Speaker. The notings of the under Secretary does not suggest that an overall review of the pay-scales of all the staff of the Assembly should be done and pay parity among the different cadre of the employees should be ensured on the basis of the equity and justice. At this stage there was third injustice to the Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 39/41 reporters.
27. It appears to this Court that the reporters of the Assembly have remained an ignored lot, perhaps only because they work in the background and may not be having any interaction with the officers and authorities of the Assembly. This may be the reason because of which, others having more exposure before the officers and authorities of the Assembly, were allowed the same revised pay- scale though getting their salary in lower unrevised scale, whereas the reporters getting their salary in higher pay-scale were not given correspondingly higher revised pay-scale. In the letter of the Joint Secretary of the Finance Department dated 19.09.2011 it has been noticed that the personal secretaries had two promotions available, to Rs.6500-10500 and then to Rs.10000-15200. But the promotion to the Reporters from Rs.6500-10500 was only to Rs.8000-13500. This exercise of comparison and an attempt to introduce pay parity amongst the different cadres of the employees working in the Assembly was apparently not done by the High Powered Committee constituted by the Speaker of the Assembly which held its meeting on 24.08.2000 and by the Cabinet Sub-Committee when it held its meeting on 19.04.2001. Clearly Principles of Equality was applied in reverse in the case of reporters of the Assembly.
28. However, after considering the entire matter, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by merely quashing Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 40/41 the annexures, as prayed for by the petitioners, as the same may create chaos in matters of pay-scale and salary of the reporters working at present in the Assembly without any immediate solution. But, this Court is of the view that the matter should not be treated as closed at the Assembly level by acceptance of note of the under Secretary dated 08.08.2013 by Speaker, as stated in the written notes on behalf of respondent no.4 and a detailed and exhaustive review of the pay-scale of the reporters vis-à-vis all the employees of the Bihar Legislative Assembly should be undertaken by the Finance Department. It is stated in the written notes that a comprehensive proposal was prepared by the respondent no.4 for such revision, but no approval has been accorded to it. However, this Court does not find any document on record in support of this statement in the written notes. Hence, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.C. Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279] and followed in Union of India Vs. Hiranmoy Sen [(2008)1 SCC 630], relied upon by learned counsels for the respondents, and following the principles of judicial review enunciated therein, this Court refrains from giving any finding in respect of entitlement of the reporters of the Assembly to any particular pay-scale, in one way or other, but refers the entire matter to the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department at the first instance, who, under the authority of this Court, shall get the exercise of review the pay-scales and Patna High Court CWJC No.491 of 2002 dt.19-09-2014 41/41 revisions introduced from time to time in respect of the reporters' cadre in the Assembly vis-à-vis other employees of the Assembly done from the stage of issue of letter no.1860 dated 20.12.1997 from the Assembly Secretariat to the Accountant General, as contained in Annexure-1, which has not been disputed by the respondents till now as incorrect. Hence, the Principal Secretary shall get this exercise done under his direct supervision by experienced officers of the Department. After completion of this exercise and after getting satisfied with its correctness, he shall refer the matter to the Cabinet Sub-Committee for consideration and for appropriate resolution with concrete proposals for final consideration of the matter by the Speaker of the Assembly and for appropriate orders. This exercise should be done and the matter should be placed before the Speaker positively within six months for consideration.
29. All I.As are allowed and are directed to be treated as part of the record and both the writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
(Jayanandan Singh, J) Arvind/-
U AFR.