Patna High Court - Orders
Sanjay Kumar Gangwal & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.11742 of 1996
1. SANJAY KUMAR GANGWAL Son of Sri Mahabir Prasad
Gangwal, resident of Bahadurpur, P.S.- Sultanganj,
District- Patna.
2. Ram Nivash Prasad Singh son of Sri Munna Prasad
Singh, resident of T-3, Jagat Apartment Ashiana Nagar,
Patna-25.
3. Arjun Singh Son of Sri Saryug Singh, resident of
Telegraph colony, Kidwaipuri, P.S.-Budda Colony,
District- Patna.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Planning
& Development Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Finance Commissioner, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Planning and Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
-----------
For the Petitioners: - Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.21
--------------
6. 18.11.2010The dispute raised by these petitioners are mere academic now because writ was filed with regard to a particular pay scale which was being claimed by these petitioners who were appointed as Credit Planners-Cum- Rural Development Experts . One of the petitioner was appointed as System Analyst in the Planning and Development Department. The issue relates to the replacement pay scale which they are entitled to get when the 5th Pay Revision Committee recommendation was made. Admitted position is that thereafter, two other pay revisions has come and the petitioners have been 2 given benefit of those revisions based on the recommendations made therein.
The Claim of the petitioners are that they should be entitled to replacement pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 instead of Rs. 2000-3800 because some similarly situated other employees under the Government have been getting this benefit. Petitioners case was ignored by the concerned authorities and no recommendations were made in their favour to the Pay Revision Committee, that was the primary reason for their being considered in their proper perspective. It is even urged that a lesser pay scale is discriminatory in nature and falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The stand of the state is otherwise. They have made a categorical statement that the case of these petitioners is not at par with other State Government employees because they are not Government employees, merely because they were appointed or selected by the B.P.S.C. They are working under a statutory Corporation and the terms and conditions of service of state, mutatus mutandis does not apply to them. Their case was considered by the Anomaly Removal Committee and rejected after due deliberation on all aspect of the 3 matter. The State Government has extended the pay scale to them based on the recommendation and they did not have any special claim for the pay scale which they are looking for.
It is nobodies case that the claims of the petitioners were not considered by the expert bodies. The recommendation or the re-placement scale are based on various parameters and dimensions. If it was a case of non consideration then there could have been an occasion to intervene and give a direction but in view of the stand of the State and keeping in mind that such issues are best left to the expert bodies to judge and decide as to the kind of pay scales they ought to be given or are entitled to.
The Court has no special mechanism to come to a considered opinion as to what will be the replacement scale which should be made available to a set of employees. Mere statement by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are similarly situated may not be good enough for many a reasons.
In the above stated background the Court does not feel inclined to pass any direction to allow to the petitioners pay scale of Rs. 2200 to 4000 instead of 2000 to 3800 which they had drawn on 4 the recommendation of the Fitment Commission pay revision committee which have been adopted and notified by the State, years ago in the year 1996.
This writ application is dismissed for the reasons above.
Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)