Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 302 (PAT)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar

2022-04-07

P.B.BAJANTHRI

body2022
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs:— “i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Authorities to allow the minimum of the Pay-Scale granted to the Amins appointed under the Directorate of Land Records and Survey on permanent basis to the petitioners who were appointed as contractual Amins through a valid selection process having same qualification and are performing identical functions, on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to implement the decision of the Government of Bihar contained in Resolution dated 17.09.2018 whereby and where under Government has decided to accept the recommendation of the High Level Committee to allow the contractual appointees to work until they attain the age of retirement without any requirement of a special order of extension of the period of contract especially in view of the fact that an order to this effect has already been issued with respect to the Amins working at the District Level in various Circle Offices. iii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to extend other benefits viz. E.P.F. deduction, Travel Allowance etc. to the petitioners in view of similar decision taken by the Government of Bihar in respect of contractual Amins working under the Chakbandi Directorate as well as those working at the District and Circle level Offices pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution dated 17.09.2018. iv. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Authorities to allow the consequential benefit of arrears of difference of salary to the petitioners calculated on the basis of minimum of the Pay-scale available to permanent Amins, from the date of their appointment to the date of payment.” 3. Short question for consideration in the present petition is whether petitioners are entitled to minimum pay attached to the post of Amins or not? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . Short question for consideration in the present petition is whether petitioners are entitled to minimum pay attached to the post of Amins or not? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is that if a person is appointed on ad hoc basis, in that event, he is entitled to minimum pay attached to the post, therefore, the concerned authorities are hereby directed to extend minimum pay attached to the post of Amins till their regularization or till the petitioners’ services is continued in the concerned department. 5. The above exercise shall be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order while extending all monetary benefits with reference to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amins. 6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off.