Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 55 (PAT)

Bejay Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2014-01-13

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant counsel appearing on behalf of A.C. to A.A.G.-10 appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioner, who retired as Marketing Secretary B in Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board has claimed fixation of pay-scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- or any higher admissible scale in place of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Inspector, Weights and Measures in the department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Market Secretary B. After the creation of Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, services of the petitioner were placed under disposal of marketing Board as Market Secretary B. 3. It is contended that there are two classes of Market Secretaries under the Board, called Market Secretary A and Market Secretary B. They were given different pay scales as per the 4th Pay Revision Committee report i.e. Rs. 785-1210/- for Market Secretary B and Rs. 1000-1820/- for Market Secretary A, though they were discharging identical duties and responsibilities. 4. This is not in dispute that the persons working as market secretaries B approached this Court by way of C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985 claiming identical pay-scale at par with pay-scale of Market Secretary A on the ground that they were discharging the same functions duties and responsibilities. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 05.12.1994 and Market Secretary B were allowed pay-scale of Rs. 1000/- to 1820/- with effect from the date when they approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985. 5. Further case of the petitioners is that the said scale of Rs. 1000-1820/- came to be revised. Case of the petitioner is that he was accordingly given the scale of Rs. 2200/- to 4000/- in terms of the order of this Court. His grievance however, is that he was granted second time bound promotion / selection grade in the meantime but the Respondents did not allow the petitioners the pay-scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- which is the next higher scale above the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. It is the petitioners’ contention that the pay-scale of the petitioner should have been fixed in the scale of Rs. 2400-4150 or any other higher in view of the grant of second time bound promotion / selection grade. 2400-4150/- which is the next higher scale above the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. It is the petitioners’ contention that the pay-scale of the petitioner should have been fixed in the scale of Rs. 2400-4150 or any other higher in view of the grant of second time bound promotion / selection grade. The specific case of the petitioner is that similarly situated persons, namely, Bejay Kumar Singh, Kamta Prasad, Ram Bilas Sinha, Ramanand Gupta and Lalit Pashupati Kumar have been granted the pay-scale of Rs. 2400-4150/-, which benefit has wrongly been denied to the petitioner. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State of Bihar stating therein that the petitioner cannot equate himself with Market Secretary A as the petitioner was on deputation by the State Government to the Marketing Board. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that case of this petitioner and Market Secretary A cannot be equated in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. So far as parity between Market Secretary A and Market Secretary B is cornered, the question is no more in dispute. This aspect has been finally decided by this Court and decision of this Court has not been interfered up to the Supreme Court. It is now not open to the State to raise such issue in the present proceeding. This court is bound by the decision of this Court as contained in the order dated 05.12.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1985. 8. There is no denial in the counter affidavit to the fact that the persons similarly situated have been granted the scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- whose names have been mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of the writ application. In view of the averments in the writ application as well as in the counter affidavit and taking into account the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I dispose of this application with a direction to the Respondent No. 4 to consider as to whether the case of this petitioner and the persons whose names have been mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this writ application, namely, Bejay Kumar Singh, Kamta Prasad, Ram Bilas Sinha, Ramanand Gupta and Lalit Pashupati Kumar are identical. If it is found that the petitioner and the above named persons come from the same class, similar benefits of fixation of pay-scale and all other consequential benefits should be given to the petitioner. The Respondent No. 4 will be required to take a final decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of production / communication of this order. It is further directed that if found entitled to for the scale of Rs. 2400-4150/- as claimed by the petitioner, the Respondent will be required to pay all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and re-fixation of pension and other retrial benefits accordingly within a period of two months thereafter. 9. This application is disposed of with the direction as above.