Patna High Court
Dr. Dharmendra Sinha And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 December, 2023
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.743 of 2016
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.920 of 2014
======================================================
1. Dr. Dharmendra Sinha, Son of late Raghunath Singh, Secretary General,
Bihar Veterinary Association, Resident of Office at Vidyapati Marg, P.S. -
Kotwali, District - Patna.
2. Dr. Janardhan Prasad Singh, Life Member of Bihar Veterinary Association
son of Late Bachhi Lall Singh Resident of Flat No. 204, Maa Vidya Washing
Complex, Sheikhpura, P.S - Sastrinagar, District - Patna. (Since Dead Vide
Order Dated 13.12.2019).
3. Dr. Arvind Kumar, Life Member of Bihar Veterinary Association Son of
Late Sukha Singh, Resident of Flat No. 203, Maa Vidya Washing Complex,
Sheikhpura, P.S. - Sastrinagar, District - Patna.
4. Dr. Vijay Kumar Jha, Life Member of Bihar Veterinary Association, Son of
Late Devi Kant Jha Resident of Flat No. 206, Officer Hostel , Bailey Road,
P.S. - Kotwali, District - Patna.
5. Dr. Kumod Ranjan, Treasurer Bihar Veterinary Association Son of Rabindra
Kumar Singh, Resident of Chitragupt Nagar, Bank Mains Colony,
Kankarbagh, P.S. - Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Main
Secretariat, Patna-1.
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Main
Secretariat, Patna - 1.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Main
Secretariat, Patna - 1.
4. Additional Secretary, Finance (Resources)-Cum-Secretary Expenditure,
Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna-1.
5. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna-1.
6. Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department,
Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
7. Accountant General, State of Bihar, Patna.
8. Director, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of
India, New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, Advocate
Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nazmul Hoda Khan, SC 1
Patna High Court L.P.A No.743 of 2016 dt.11-12-2023
2/6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 11-12-2023
The appellants have assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 01.02.2016 passed in CWJC No. 920 of 2014.
The appellants association and its members have sought for
extension of Non-Practicing Allowance with reference to 6 th Pay
Revision Committee. The same was rejected by the learned Single
Judge in its order dated 01.02.2016 passed in CWJC No. 920 of
2014, hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Perusal of the records, it is undisputed that appellants
association is of Veterinary Doctors Association. While executing
5th Pay Revision Committee of Central Government, the State
Government proceeded to extend Non-Practicing Allowances.
Thereafter question for consideration is whether appellants are
entitled to similar benefits with reference to 6 th pay revision
committee or not. The learned Single Judge has recorded in
paragraph nos. 7 and 8 which reads as under:-
"7. There is a series of exchange of
pleadings in the present writ application. From
those pleadings and notifications, it is the
stand of the State counsel that the issue of
grant of NPA to Doctors including the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.743 of 2016 dt.11-12-2023
Veterinary Doctors was not adopted or
implemented in toto on the basis of the
recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision
Committee of the Central Government. The
State authorities decided to set up a committee
to look into the recommendations and come
out with their suggestion which may be
adopted even by the State of Bihar. The three
member committee, which went into the issue,
did recommend that NPA could be extended to
certain set of Doctors but so far as the
Veterinary Doctors are concerned, the
committee's recommendation was otherwise.
That recommendation of the committee has
now been accepted and notified in terms of a
notification dated 13.1.2016, which is
Annexure- B to the 3rd supplementary counter
affidavit of respondent no.2.
8. The emphatic submission of the
learned counsel for the State is that the State
Government as a conscious decision has
decided not to extend the benefit of NPA to the
Veterinary Doctors including various Doctors
working in the State of Bihar. Merely because
the notification has been issued in the year
2016, it does not mean that it has to be
prospective in nature. This notification is only
certifying the position that the Government
was not willing to extend the benefit of NPA to
the members of the Association even though
the 6th Pay Revision committee of the Central
Government did propose so."
3. In other words a conscious decision has been taken by
the State Government to not to extend Non-Practicing Allowance
to the Veterinary Doctors on par with Health Family Welfare
Doctors. No doubt there is a discrimination among the two class of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.743 of 2016 dt.11-12-2023
officers/employees of the State Government in so far as extending
Non-Practicing Allowance. At the same time, such extension of
Non-Practicing Allowance is a service condition and it is left to the
respective State either to accept or not to accept recommendation
of the 6th Pay Revision. In other words, it is entirely policy
decision of the State Government either to extend or not?
4. The Apex Court in the case of P. U. Joshi and Ors.
vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. reported in
(2003) 2 SCC 632, it is held that employees are not entitled to
seek certain benefits of service condition on par with others and
they are required to be determined by the State. In para 10 it is
held as under:
"10. We have carefully considered the
submissions made on behalf of both parties.
Questions relating to the constitution, pattern,
nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their
creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications
and other conditions of service including avenues
of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such
promotions pertain to the field of Policy is within
the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the
State, subject, of course, to the limitations or
restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India
and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any
rate, to direct the Government to have a particular
method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or
avenues of promotion or impose itself by
substituting its views for that of the State.
Similarly, it is well open and within the
competency of the State to change the rules
Patna High Court L.P.A No.743 of 2016 dt.11-12-2023
relating to a service and alter or amend and vary
by addition/substraction the qualifications,
eligibility criteria and other conditions of service
including avenues of promotion, from time to time,
as the administrative exigencies may need or
necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate
rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or
bifurcate departments into more and constitute
different categories of posts or cadres by
undertaking further classification, bifurcation or
amalgamation as well as reconstitute and
restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of
service, as may be required from time to time by
abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating
new cadres/posts. There is no right in any
employee of the State to claim that rules
governing conditions of his service should be
forever the same as the one when he entered
service for all purposes and except for ensuring or
safeguarding rights or benefits already earned,
acquired or accrued at a particular point of time,
a Government servant has no right to challenge
the authority of the State to amend, alter and
bring into force new rules relating to even an
existing service."
5. Recently the Apex Court in the case of The Union
of India & Ors. vs. Rajib Khan @ Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 172
of 2023 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8083 of 2022) held
that two sets of officers or employees are not entitled to same
monetary benefits. It may differs depending upon various factors
like Education qualification, cadre, experience and other factors.
6. In view of the aforementioned Apex Court decisions
and the fact that State Government has taken a policy decision not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.743 of 2016 dt.11-12-2023
to extend Non-Practicing Allowance to such of those Veterinary
Doctors on par with doctors in other departments. The learned
Single Judge has rightly declined to grant relief in the petition
CWJC No. 920 of 2014, thus, the appellants have not made out a
case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 01.02.2016 passed in CWJC No. 920 of 2014.
7. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.12.2023
Transmission Date
