Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 324 (PAT)

Md. Abdul Mannan v. Union of India

2012-02-24

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard the parties. The orders under challenge are that of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench dated 22-12-2009 (Annexure-1) and notification by State Government dated 21-4-2001 (Annexure-2). 2. The earlier orders passed in this case indicate that petitioners have strongly relied upon judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi (annexure-35), as affirmed by a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court by judgement dated 21-08-2009 (annexure-36) for advancing a submission that identical issues have been decided in favour of similarly situated employees of Jharkhand State and there was no good reason for taking a different view by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna in the impugned order dated 22.12.2009 in O.A. no. 199/2009 (annexure-1). 3. This court was informed at earlier occasions that the State of Jharkhand had preferred appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgement of the Jharkhand High Court contained in annexure-36 and hence, this court had kept the present matter pending as is apparent from our order passed on 31.8.2010. By that order certain interim directions were made for continuation of earlier interim order dated 3.8.2010. The SLP (Civil) No. 29678/2009 led to Civil Appeal No. 2243/2010 and that has been ultimately withdrawn by the State of Jharkhand as is apparent from the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 9.9.2011. A copy of that order is available on record as annexurre-5 to I.A. No. 1138/2012 filed on behalf of the petitioners. From the order it appears that the Supreme Court heard the parties before allowing the prayer of the State of Jharkhand to withdraw the appeal. It was clarified that all interim orders would stand vacated and the Union Public Service Commission will be at liberty to declare the results which had been withheld on account of orders of that court. 4. It is not in dispute that the State of Bihar had issued a resolution dated 21.4.2001 (Annexure-2) declaring equivalence of posts under Non civil services of the State with that of Deputy Collector in connection with IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. Following the said resolution the State of Jharkhand also issued similar resolution dated 17.1.2003. Admittedly, equivalence notified by the State of Jharkhand was verbatim reproduction of the resolution of State of Bihar. Following the said resolution the State of Jharkhand also issued similar resolution dated 17.1.2003. Admittedly, equivalence notified by the State of Jharkhand was verbatim reproduction of the resolution of State of Bihar. The resolution of State of Jharkhand like the resolution of State of Bihar determined the equivalence of posts of Civil Services other than Forest Service, Police Service and Administrative Service (Non State Civil Services) with the post of Deputy Collector of the State Civil Services by providing equivalence with posts in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- 15,200/- or higher scales and only on acquiring minimum experience of eight years, the incumbents would be entitled for consideration like a Deputy Collector in the State Civil Services for recruitment to IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. 5. Some officers who had subsequently been allocated to State of Jharkhand but claimed right of consideration from earlier years before the State of Bihar was bifurcated, challenged the resolution of State of Jharkhand by preferring O.A. No. 221/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi. Their challenge to the resolution succeeded and the Tribunal by order dated 13-01-2006 (annexure-35) held that the impugned equivalence was contrary to the principles indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of T. Sham Bhat Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1994) Supp. (3) SCC 340. The Tribunal which considered the submissions advanced on behalf of State of Jharkhand as well as State of Bihar which was also one of the parties, found the equivalence to be contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court which required consideration of pay scales as well as duties and responsibilities of the posts in question. Hence, the Tribunal declared that the equivalence of non SCS officers belonging to Engineering Service in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- 15,200/- with that of Deputy Collectors who are in the scales of Rs. 6500/- 10,500/- was bad in law. Relevant resolution was quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law and the order of the Tribunal. The exercise was to be completed within three months from the receipt of that order. The State of Jharkhand challenged the judgement of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court bearing WP (C) No. 2464/2006. The exercise was to be completed within three months from the receipt of that order. The State of Jharkhand challenged the judgement of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court bearing WP (C) No. 2464/2006. That writ petition was heard by a Division Bench and by an exhaustive and well considered judgement the Division Bench concurred with the views of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21.8.2009 (annexure-36). 6. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar tried to re-agitate the issues already considered and decided by the Circuit Bench of the Tribunal and the Jharkhand High Court by placing before us the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of T. Sham Bhat (supra). According to learned counsel for the State of Bihar the Circuit Bench of the Tribunal at Ranchi as well as the Jharkhand High Court had fallen in error in deciding the equivalence only on consideration of pay scales. 7. In the light of aforesaid submission we were taken through the relevant paragraphs of the judgement of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court by Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. From paragraphs 16, 19, 20, 27, 30, 40, 45, 47, 48 and 52 to 54 of judgement of the Tribunal and from paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgement of the Jharkhand High Court it was shown that the correctness of equivalence was decided not only on the basis of pay scales but also on the basis of responsibilities and duties of the post. Hence, on merits we do not find any error in the views of the Tribunal in its judgement and order contained in annexure-35 and of the Jharkhand High Court contained in annexure-36 so as to take a different view. 8. We also find substance in the submission advanced by Mr. Giri that State of Bihar was a party to the proceeding before the Circuit Bench of the Tribunal as well as before the Jharkhand High Court and it has accepted their judgements and orders inspite of the decision being contrary to the stand of the State of Bihar and hence, the issues decided in those judgements should be held to be binding upon the State of Bihar also. 9. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings, we find that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench has taken an erroneous view in the matter by refusing to follow the judgement which the same Tribunal rendered at Circuit Bench, Ranchi earlier. There was no good reason for the Patna Bench to take a different view on 22.12.2009 when the issue had been decided long back by the Circuit Bench, Ranchi on 13.1.2006 and accepted by the State of Bihar. The judgement of the Jharkhand High Court dated 21.8.2009 was also cited before the Patna Bench of the Tribunal but it was not accorded the value which it deserved. The views of another High Court may not be binding upon the Patna Bench of the Tribunal but the judgement of the Jharkhand High Court definitely had persuasive value and good reasons were required to take a contrary view. We do not find any good reason in the impugned judgement whereby challenge to a similar resolution of the State of Bihar has been rejected only by observing in paragraph 18 that it is of utmost importance to compare the nature of posts and the duties and responsibilities discharged in such posts by the Non SCS officers for judging their relative or comparative ability and merit. In this regard we may only refer to annexures- 8 and 9 to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Giri. Annexure-8 is a letter written by Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar to the Secretary of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar on 15.2.2007. It refers to the representation filed by Members of the Engineering Service including petitioners and points out that for getting the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- 15,200/- an Engineer entering into such service is required to serve for minimum 20 years and thereafter he has to wait for further eight years in view of equivalence decided by the State of Bihar. The Tribunal has also noticed that the pay scale of Rs. 10,000/- 15,200/- meant for Executive Engineers may not be appropriate because Executive Engineers as per past practice were posted in the districts whereas Deputy Collectors in eight years period are posted only to shoulder responsibilities at subdivision level. By annexure-9, the Finance Department of the State of Bihar has issued a resolution dated 17.1.2009. 10,000/- 15,200/- meant for Executive Engineers may not be appropriate because Executive Engineers as per past practice were posted in the districts whereas Deputy Collectors in eight years period are posted only to shoulder responsibilities at subdivision level. By annexure-9, the Finance Department of the State of Bihar has issued a resolution dated 17.1.2009. By that resolution six State services including Bihar Engineering Service to which the petitioners belong and five other services namely Bihar Administrative Service, Bihar Police Service, Bihar Finance Service, Bihar Health Service and Bihar Veterinary Service have been declared to be premier services for which the initial pay scale shall be same, i.e., of Rs. 8,000/- 13,500/-. We have referred to the aforesaid materials only to indicate that on going through the materials on record, we are also of the view that the Jharkhand High Court has properly considered the materials and remanded the matter. The State of Bihar should also reconsider the matter of equivalence in view of observations and directions contained in the judgements of the Circuit Bench of Tribunal and of the Jharkhand High Court contained in annexures- 35 and 36. 10. Accordingly, we quash the notification relating to equivalence dated 21.4.2001 contained in annexure-2 as well as judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench dated 22.12.2009 (annexure-1) and direct the State of Bihar to reconsider the matter of equivalence in the light of all the relevant materials and as per law within three months. The time limit indicated above should be adhere to in its letter and spirit because delay may adversely affect several eligible persons who may loose the chance of consideration only on account of further delay. If the petitioners are found eligible, their cases may also be considered without delay. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.