Jharkhand High Court

Niranjan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 March, 2021

                                1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              W.P.(S) No. 6404 of 2014
                          ---------
   Niranjan Kumar                          ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
   1.   The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
        Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
        Bhavan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
        Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
        Bhavan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   3.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
        Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of
        Jharkhand, having office at Project Bhavan, P.O & P.S.-
        Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   4.   The Principal Secretary, Law (Justice) Department,
        Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
        Bhavan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   5.   The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi,
        P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
   6.   The Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High Court at
        Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
   7.   The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
        Authority, Ranchi, having office at Nyaya Sadan, P.O. &
        P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
   8.   The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee,
        Ranchi having office at Nyaya Sadan, P.O. & P.S.
        Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi. ..... Respondents
                           With
                W.P.(S) No. 6406 of 2014
   Roshan Lal                                   ..... Petitioner
                         Versus
   1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
      Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Project
      Bhavan P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
      Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan P.O.-Project
      Bhavan P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
   3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
      Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of
      Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S.
      Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
                             2

4. The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
   Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S. Dhurva, District-
   Ranchi.
5. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi,
   P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
6. The Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High Court at
   Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
   Authority, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
                                      ..... Respondents
                        With

             W.P.(S) No. 6435 of 2014
Ravindra Lal Sahu                       ..... Petitioner
                         Versus
1.   The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
     Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project
     Bhavan P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
     Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan P.O.-Project
     Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
     Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of
     Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S.
     Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4.   The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
     Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-
     Ranchi.
5.   The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi,
     P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
6.   The Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High Court at
     Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7.   The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
     Authority, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
                                         ..... Respondents
                          With

               W.P.(S) No. 6490 of 2014
Asha Agrawal                                 ..... Petitioner
                    Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project
   Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
                             3

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
   Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan P.O.-Project
   Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
   Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S.
   Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
   Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-
   Ranchi.
5. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi,
   P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
6. The Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High Court at
   Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7. The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
   Authority, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
                                       ..... Respondents

                          With

             W.P.(S) No. 6503 of 2014
Mukesh Singh                                 ..... Petitioner
                         Versus
1.   The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
     Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project
     Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
     Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan P.O.-Project
     Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
     Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of
     Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S.
     Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4.   The Law Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project
     Bhavan, P.O.-Project Bhavan P.S. Dhurwa, District-
     Ranchi.
5.   The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi,
     P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
6.   The Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High Court at
     Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
7.   The Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services
     Authority, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
                                         ..... Respondents
                                   4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                    ---------
For the Petitioners           : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate.
For the Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh,
                             A.C. to S.C.-IV
For the Respondents 5 to 8 : Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate
                  ---------

                  JUDGEMENT

C.A.V. On 07.01.2021 Delivered on 25/03/2021.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. Since common issue is involved in all the aforesaid

writ applications, as such all are being heard together and

disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The writ applications have been preferred by the

petitioners praying therein for following reliefs;

(I) To grant pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- to

the petitioner w.e.f. 15.09.2006 (notionally) and for

monetary benefit w.e.f. 01.03.2007, in view of

Memo no. 599/Finance dated 06.03.2007 issued

by the Department of Finance, Government of

Jharkhand, Ranchi as the same is being paid to

the other similarly situated employees like the

petitioner in the State Government or appointed

before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi;

(II) To grant Grade pay of Rs. 4,600/- in view of

Memo no. 2954 dated 30th October, 2010 issued

by the Finance Department, Government of

Jharkhand, Ranchi, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as the

same is being paid to the similarly situated

employees appointed and posted at Jharkhand

Secretariat or the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court,

Ranchi;

(iii) To grant arrears of the dues along with

interest owing to non-payment of pay scale of

Rs.6500-200-10500/- w.e.f. 1.3.2007 and also

Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along

with interest and all consequential benefits.

                             And/or

              For     issuance             of     any   other    appropriate

writ/order/direction to which petitioner is legally

entitled for as pecuniary financial loss is caused to

the petitioner.

4. The facts of the case is that on 13.02.2002 the

Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative

Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

addressed to the Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court,

Ranchi on the subject of appointment of Personal

Assistants (PAs) in Jharkhand State Legal Services

Authority ( in short JHALSA) stating therein that there is

shortage of PAs in the Joint Secretariat Cadre and

appointment of PAs in JHALSA may be considered by way

of deputation from the pool of PAs of Jharkhand High

Court.

It further appears that vide letter dated

17.04.2002, the Law Secretary addressed to the Member

Secretary, JHALSA annexing the copy of aforesaid letter

dated 13.02.2002 addressed to the Registrar General,

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi requesting therein to fill up

the post from the cadre of Jharkhand High Court in Class-

III and Class-IV post. Thereafter, on 22.02.2002 the

Jharkhand High Court issued the advertisement for

appointment on the post of Personal Assistant in the pay

scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-.

All these petitioners participated in the

selection process pursuant to the said advertisement and

were declared successful. It further appears that on

31.05.2002, the Registrar Establishment, Jharkhand High

Court wrote a letter to the Member Secretary, JHALSA

sending list of 3 selected candidates for appointment as

Personal Assistant and also requested to issue appointment

letters to all the selected candidates including these

petitioners within three days from the date of receipt of

letter. Pursuant thereto; the Member Secretary, JHALSA

issued appointment letters to the petitioners as Personal

Assistant under JHALSA in the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-175-

9,000/.

It was further stated in the appointment letter

that the candidates would be governed by the Jharkhand

Service Code and the Rules and Circulars applicable to the

State Government employees.

On 19.06.2002, the Member Secretary, JHALSA

placed the services of the petitioners to the Jharkhand High

Court Legal Services Committee. Since then the petitioners

are working as Personal Assistant in Jharkhand High Court

Legal Services Committee.

5. It further appears that on 06.03.2007,

pursuant to the recommendations made by the Fitment

Committee, the Finance Department vide its resolution

placed the Assistant of Secretariat Cadre and Personal

Assistant of Joint Cadre in the scale of Rs. 6,500-200-

10,500/- w.e.f. 15.09.2006 (notionally) and monetary

benefits w.e.f. 01.03.2007.

            On      27.04.2007,         the     Registrar       General,

Jharkhand        High   Court       issued    office    order   wherein

pursuant to aforesaid resolution dated 06.03.2007; PAs

were granted revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/-.

These PAs who were granted revised pay scale included the

PAs who were appointed under the same advertisement as

the petitioners.

On 21.05.2007, JHALSA also vide its office

order revised pay scale of PAs in JHALSA including the

petitioners to Rs. 6,500-200-10,500/- as per aforesaid

resolution dated 06.03.2007.

6. However, on 20.06.2007, the Member

Secretary, JHALSA as per order of Hon'ble Executive

Chairman issued an office order cancelling the earlier office

order dated 21.05.2007. Pursuant thereto; on 10.07.2007,

petitioners preferred representation to the Member

Secretary, JHALSA on account of non-granting of revised

pay scale stating therein that the petitioners are suffering

financial loss and the same will also have a bearing on their

retiral benefits.

On 30.10.2010, the Finance Department vide

its resolution enhanced grade pay of Assistants and PAs of

Secretariat cadre from Rs. 4,200/- to Rs. 4,600/- w.e.f.

01.01.2006. However, despite the fact that petitioners were

getting the same grade pay of Rs, 4,200/-; they were not

granted such enhancement.

The reason for not granting the enhanced pay-

scale and grade pay to the petitioners appears to be due to

some confusion as to whether petitioners are employee of

State Government or of the Jharkhand High Court.

However, it is pertinent to mention here that persons who

were appointed along with the petitioners by the Jharkhand

High Court; pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement,

are getting the enhanced pay-scale and grade pay.

7.            Mr.   A.K.    Das,     learned     counsel   for   the

petitioners   submits      that    the   State   Government      vide

Annexure- 1 dated 17.04.2002 and Annexure- 1/1 dated

13.02.2002 had expressed their inability to post senior

Personal Assistants and Personal Assistants from the

Secretariat of JHALSA and requested for either deputing the

said employees from the High Court pool or making

appointments at their level.

He further submits that all the petitioners have

applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement

(Annexure- 2) issued by the High Court for the post of

Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-.

The petitioners were selected from the panel of the selected

candidates and posted at JHALSA for the appointment to

the post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-

175-9000/-. At the time of appointment, the pay-scale of

the petitioners was at par with their counterparts who were

appointed at High Court and the Secretariat.

He further submits that when the petitioners

were appointed through the same advertisement, as were

their counterparts in High Court from the same panel

(Annexure 2 & 3), the questions of allowing different pay-

scale to the petitioners do not arise.

8. Mr. Das further draws attention of this Court

towards the affidavit filed by the Jharkhand High Court

dated 27.11.2015 which specifically mentions that the Ex-

Chairman, JHALSA had proposed that the pay-scale of the

Personal Assistants and Assistants of JHALSA should be at

par with that of the same at High Court vide letter bearing

No. 205 dated 11.5.2010 and an amendment was sought in

Schedule-I at Sl. 5 & 6 of the Jharkhand State Legal

Services Authority Rules, 2001 wherein the pay-scale of the

Personal Assistants and Assistants of JHALSA should be at

par with their counterparts in the High Court. He submits

that the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice was pleased to accord

his consent to the proposal and directed the Registrar-

General for making the necessary amendments. Thus, there

remains no ambiguity that the petitioners were entitled to

the pay-scale and allowance as that of his counterparts in

the High Court.

9. He further submits that the State Government

is raising objections, one or the other as would be apparent

from Para 10 and 11 of their Counter-affidavit. All queries

and objections raised by the Finance Department were duly

replied by the High Court and the Member Secretary vide

letter dated 09.08.2011. But despite thereof, the State

authorities have kept the matter pending and in such

circumstances, allowing the pay-scale at a lower scale than

what has been allowed to the Personal Assistants and

Assistants of the High Court would be discriminatory and

illegal.

10. Learned counsel further submits that during

the pendency of the litigation, the State Government has

brought the Jharkhand Gazette Rules, 2016 where the pay-

scale of the JHALSA Personal Assistants and Assistants has

been brought at par with that of the High Court. Therefore,

the dispute remains to the previous period from 2007 to

2016.

11. In support of his contention, Mr. Das relied

upon the judgment passed in the case of State of UP &

Ors. Vs. Pratap Narain Chaddha & Ors reported in

(2001) 9 SCC 310, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that though there was difference in educational

qualifications but once the diploma-holders had put in 5

years of service in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660/-, they

should be treated at par with the graduate lecturers of the

Polytechnic with the same pay scale.

Learned counsel further relied upon the

judgment passed in the case of R.D Gupta & Ors. Vs. Lt.

Governor, Delhi Administration & Ors reported in (1987)

4 SCC 505, wherein this case, the Supreme Court held

that that the three wings of NDMC are interchangeable

posts. The Hon'ble Court further held that the mere fact

that the persons belong to different departments of

Government holding identical posts may not be treated

differentially in the matter of their way.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly

submits that in the present case, the petitioners who were

appointed pursuant to the same advertisement issued by

the High Court, the High Court could not have allowed a

different pay-scale because the petitioners were originally

posted at JHALSA. Once the petitioners were allowed the

benefits of the revised pay scale vide Annexure-8, then the

same benefit cannot be withdrawn.

In support of this contention learned counsel

relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Ors

reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154, wherein it has been stated

that if the employer has served no notice for the reduction

of pay or granted no opportunity to show cause against the

reduction of basic pay and the order was made behind back

of the petitioners without following any procedure of law;

the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Learned counsel concluded his argument by

submitting that there has been a flagrant violation of

principles of natural justice and the petitioners have

suffered financial loss without being heard. Fair play in

action warrants that no such order which has the effect of

an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed

without putting the petitioner to notice and giving them a

hearing.

13. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for

the respondent-High Court submits that the Member

Secretary, JHALSA has requested the High Court for

amendment in Schedule- I at sl.nos. 5 & 6 of the

Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority Rules, 2001, so

as to bring the pay-scale of Personal Assistants and

Assistants at par with PAs and Assistants of Jharkhand

High Court. Thereafter, Jharkhand High Court has

forwarded the said request of JHALSA with concurrence of

Hon'ble the Chief Justice to the State Government.

He further submits that the Law Secretary vide

his letter dated 08.07.2011 made certain queries regarding

PAs of JHALSA from Jharkhand High Court, which was in

turn forwarded by Jharkhand High Court to JHALSA.

Pursuant thereto, JHALSA replied to the queries of State

Government vide its letter dated 09.08.2011 sent to

Jharkhand High Court, wherein it was clearly stated that

PAs of JHALSA have been selected along with other PAs of

Jharkhand High Court and appointment orders have been

issued stating that they shall be guided by Rules as

applicable to PAs of Jharkhand High Court.

He lastly submits that the Jharkhand High

Court sent a reminder to Law Secretary vide its letter dated

20.07.2012 and also sent a letter to JHALSA stating that

JHALSA must take up the matter with State Government.

14. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the

respondent-State submits that the petitioners are the

Personal Assistant of JHALSA appointed by the Secretary,

JHALSA. As per schedule-I of the JHALSA Rules, 2001 the

said authority has a separate cadre of Personal Assistants

to which the petitioners belong and the petitioners do not

belong to the Secretariat Personal Assistant Joint Cadre

which is administered and regulated presently by

Jharkhand Secretariat Stenographers Service Rules, 2011.

He further submits that the claim of the

petitioners is based upon a presumption that the employees

of JHALSA are at par with the employees of the State

Government and Hon'ble High Court which is misconceived.

He contended that the mode of appointment of employees of

JHALSA and State Government is different. The Memo No.

599 dated 06.03.2007 relates to the employees of the State

Government and its allied offices and not to the employees

of Corporations or Authorities and since JHALSA is not an

allied office of the Jharkhand Secretariat and hence, the

benefit of the same does not automatically applicable to the

employees of JHALSA.

Mr. Rahul Kamlesh further submits that at the

time when the petitioners were appointed, the recruitment

rule for JHALSA was not framed. Now, recruitment rules for

JHALSA have been framed in the year 2016 and are

applicable from the date of notification/publication of the

said rules. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim the benefits

of the same retrospectively.

He lastly submits that the JHALSA is an

Authority constituted under Jharkhand State Legal

Services Authority Rules, 2001 an autonomous body having

separate cadre of employees now guided by separate rules

i.e. JHALSA Rules, 2016 and the petitioners' contention

that they are at par with the employee of High Court is also

misconceived. This fact is apparent from Annexure-A to the

counter-affidavit filed by High Court, whereby, the Registrar

General has been requested to obtain concurrence of

Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court for

application of Jharkhand High Court Rules on the

Assistants/ Personal Assistants of JHALSA; meaning

thereby till date they were not at par with High Court

Employees. Therefore, amendment in Rule 6 of Jharkhand

State Legal Services Authority Rules, 2001 was proposed

and matter was pursued with the State Government.

Subsequently, in 2016 Recruitment Rules for employees of

JHALSA were framed and now they are guided by this Rule.

In support of his contention learned counsel

for the respondent-State relied upon the Hon'ble Division

Bench of Delhi High Court's judgment passed in case of

Union of India & Anr. VS Association of the Employees

of Indian Institute of Mass Communication (Regd.) &

Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 4115/2014] wherein the Delhi High Court

has held as under:-

"43. As mentioned in the discussion herein above,

in view of this Court, the employees of ABs are not

at par with the employees of Central Government

and OM dated 1st May, 1987 does not automatically

cover employees of ABs and where there is no

concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, in that case

the benefit of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme cannot

be extended to the employees of ABs in lieu of the

CPF Scheme already prevailing there......"

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and after going through the documents annexed and the

averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that

the State Government vide letter dated 17.04.2002 and

13.02.2002 (Annexure-1 & 1/1), had expressed their

inability to post senior Personal Assistants and Personal

Assistants from the Secretariat to JHALSA and requested

for either deputing the said employees from the High Court

pool or making appointments at their level.

It also appears from the fact that petitioners

have applied for the said post pursuant to the

advertisement (Annexure- 2) issued by the High Court for

the post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-

175-9000/- and they were duly selected from the panel of

the selected candidates and posted at JHALSA for the

appointment to the post of Personal Assistant in the pay

scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000.

At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here

that at the time of appointment, the pay-scale of the

petitioners were at par with their counterparts who were

appointed at High Court and the Secretariat. It is a settled

principle of law that if the pre-revised pay-scale is same

then on revision, there cannot be any discrimination when

the pay-scale is revised. In the instant case, when the

petitioners were appointed through the same

advertisement; as were their counterparts in High Court

from the same panel (Annexure 2 & 3), the question of

allowing different pay-scale to the petitioners do not arise.

It further appears that the affidavit filed by the

Jharkhand High Court dated 27.11.2015 specifically

mentions that the then Chairman JHALSA had proposed

that the pay-scale of the Personal Assistants and Personal

Assistants of JHALSA should be at par with that of the

same at High Court and pursuant thereto; an amendment

was sought in Schedule-I at Sl. 5 & 6 of the Jharkhand

State Legal Services Authority Rules, 2001 in order to make

the pay-scale of the Personal Assistants and Personal

Assistants of JHALSA at par with their counterparts in High

Court. It also appears that the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice

has accorded his consent to the proposal and directed the

Registrar-General for making the necessary amendments.

Thus, there remains no ambiguity that the petitioners were

entitled to the pay-scale and allowance as that of their

counterparts in the High Court.

It further transpires that the objections of the

State Government raised by the Finance Department were

duly replied by the High Court and the Member Secretary

vide letter dated 09.08.2011. But despite thereof, the State

authorities have kept the matter pending for years together

and finally came with the Jharkhand Gazette Rules, 2016

where the pay-scale of the JHALSA Personal Assistants and

Assistants has been brought at par with that of the High

Court. Therefore, the dispute remains to the previous

period from 2007 to 2016.

16. In such circumstances, allowing the pay-scale

at a lower scale than what has been allowed to the Personal

Assistants and Assistants of the High Court would be

discriminatory and illegal due to following reasons:-

(i) The State Government itself has expressed their

inability to post senior Personal Assistants and

Personal Assistants from the Secretariat to

JHALSA since there was shortage of PAs in the

Joint Secretariat Cadre and requested for either

deputing the said employees from the High

Court pool or making appointments at their

level;

(ii) These petitioners have been duly selected

pursuant to the same advertisement issued by

the High Court for the post of Personal

Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-

9000/- and posted at JHALSA and persons who

were appointed along with the petitioners by the

Jharkhand High Court pursuant to the

aforementioned advertisement, are getting the

enhanced pay-scale and grade pay;

(iii) At the time of appointment, the pay-scale of the

petitioners was at par with their counterparts

who were appointed at High Court and the

Secretariat;

(iv) It is a settled principle of law that if the pre-

revised pay-scale is same then on revision,

there cannot be any discrimination when the

pay-scale is revised.

(v) The State Government itself in the later stage

came with Jharkhand Gazette Rules, 2016

where the pay-scale of the JHALSA Personal

Assistant and Assistants has been brought at

par with that of the High Court.

(vi) The delay in framing and implementing the

Jharkhand Gazette Rules 2016 cannot be

attributed to these petitioners and they cannot

be penalized for that as admittedly; the request

for amendment in Schedule- I at Sl. no. 5 & 6 of

the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority

Rules, 2001, so as to bring the pay-scale of

Personal Assistants and Assistants at par with

PAs and Assistants of Jharkhand High Court,

was made immediately after the Registrar

General, Jharkhand High Court issued office

order wherein pursuant to resolution of the

Government dated 06.03.2007 PAs were

granted revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-200-

10,500/- for the sole reason that all of them

were appointed from the same advertisement.

Further, all the queries were replied way back

in the year 2011 itself.

17. It is now no more res integra that the theory of

equality, is an essential ingredient in formulation of any

policy by the State and the glance of the same can be found

in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of

the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution

of India command that the State is under a constitutional

obligation to guarantee a social order providing justice-

social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimizing

monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to

sufficient means of livelihood and by providing for adequate

wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and

by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. In

other words, if the State is giving some economic benefits to

one class while denying the same to other then the onus of

justifying the same lies on the State specially in the

circumstances when both the classes or group of persons

were treated as same in the past by the State. Since these

petitioners have been duly selected pursuant to the same

advertisement issued by the High Court and at the time of

appointment, the pay-scale of the petitioners was at par

with their counterparts who were appointed at High Court

and the Secretariat, there is no justification in denying

them the same benefits.

18. It is by now well settled that no orders causing

civil consequences can be passed, without observing rules

of natural justice as it was held in Bhagwan Shukla vs.

Union of India & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2480 wherein it was

held as under:

"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs, 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also

no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.

19. The argument of the learned counsel for the

Respondent-State that when the petitioners were appointed,

the recruitment rule for JHALSA was not framed and

petitioners' contention that they are at par with the

employee of High Court is misconceived is not acceptable to

this Court for the sole reason that all these petitioners were

duly selected pursuant to the same advertisement issued by

the High Court for the post of Personal Assistant in the pay

scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- and posted at JHALSA and

that too when State Government itself has expressed their

inability to post senior Personal Assistants and Personal

Assistants from the Secretariat to JHALSA since there was