Patna High Court
Ramashish Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 31 January, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16640 of 2018
======================================================
Ramashish Prasad Singh, Son of Late Nageshwar Singh, Resident of
Priyadarshani Apartment, Flat No. B-401, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road,
P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The State of Jharkhand, Ranchi through Chief Secretary, Ranchi.
3. Accountant General, A.G. Office, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
4. Accountant General, A.G. Office, Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Senior Accounts Officer GE07AJo (XVIII)N-10, A.G. Bihar.
6. The Registrar General, Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9425 of 2018
======================================================
1.1. Amrendra Kumar Sinha Son of Late Braj Bihari Sinha and Late Punam
Sinha. Resident of Mohalla - Ayodhyapuri, Sri Nagar, Police Station - Siwan
Mufassil, District - Siwan.
1.2. Narendra Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Braj Bihari Sinha and Late Punam
Sinha, Resident of Mohalla - Ayodhyapuri, Sri Nagar, Police Station - Siwan
Mufassil, District - Siwan.
1.3. Bharti Sinha, daughter of Late Braj Bihari Sinha and Late Punam Sinha.
Resident of Mohalla - Ayodhyapuri, Sri Nagar, Police Station - Siwan
Mufassil, District - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Accountant General (A &E), Bihar, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
2/9
6. The Registrar General, Hon'ble Patna High Court, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16640 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the AG : Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, Advocate
For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9425 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary AC to GP-24
For the AG : Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, Advocate
For the High Court : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 31-01-2024
The petitioner in CWJC No. 16640/2018 is a retired
judicial officer and substituted petitioner in CWJC No. 9425 of
2018 is the son of a retired judicial officer; whose wife was the
original petitioner. Both the petitioners seek revision of salaries
carried out when the officers were in service, based on the
revision proposed by the Shetty Commission report; which
came into effect on 01.01.1996, but the monetory benefit was to
be paid with effect from 01.07.1996. Both the petitioners rely on
a judgment of this Court in Nawal Kishore Prasad vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 10065/2010 dated
12.07.2011
, produced as Annexure-3 in CWJC No. 16640 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
2018.
2. We have heard the parties and perused the records
and also looked at the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India; (2002) 4
SCC 247, which was relied on by the High Court to negate the
claim raised by the two judicial officers.
3. The petitioner in CWJC No. 16640/2018 joined the
service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and retired as such. The
judicial officer, whose revision of pay is agitated in CWJC No.
9425/2018 was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and
retired on 31.12.1997, while continuing in the Bihar Superior
Judicial Service. For a resolution of the separate similar claims
made by the petitioners, reference to the facts are necessary and
hence, we have to narrate the same before proceeding with the
adjudication.
4. In CWJC No. 16640/2018, the petitioner was
appointed on 04.06.1975 as a Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior
Division). The petitioner was transferred in the course of service
and later retired on 17.07.2001. The petitioner was promoted to
the First Level of Need Based Post as per Annexure-1 dated
10.01.1997 with effect from 20.06.1987. The petitioner's name
is found at Sl. No. 41 in Annexure-1. The petitioner, thus, was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
promoted to the post with pay scale Rs.9000-14550 and retired
from the said post.
5. The petitioner's contention is that, in fact, he should
have been granted the pay scale of Rs.12850-17550. The
petitioner who was at the scale of 3000-4500 was wrongly
fixed in the pay scale of Rs.9000-14550 at the time of
Annexure-1, is the argument.
6. It is very pertinent that the petitioner did not seek to
challenge Annexure-1, revision of pay scale at the time when it
was passed. Later, on the bifurcation of Bihar into the States of
Bihar and Jharkhand, the petitioner chose Jharkhand and it was
from that State, the petitioner retired on 17.07.2001. The
petitioner is said to have taken up the cause with the
Government of Bihar, for the first time by Annexure-2 dated
28.01.2016. The petitioner also relies on Annexure-4 issued by
the Registry of the High Court, wherein it is stated that as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited above, the
petitioner's corresponding scale for Rs.3000-4500 would be
Rs.12850-17550. The office of the Accountant General,
however, refused to enhance the revision to the higher pay scale.
7. The learned counsel for the High Court pointed out
from All India Judges' Association (supra) that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
remained as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and his scale of pay,
as per Shetty Commission Report was Rs.9000-14550. The
higher scale of Rs.12850-17550 was applicable only to the Civil
Judge (Senior Division) and officers in the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), who obtained second stage ACP.
8. The Accountant General's counter affidavit
indicates that the claim of the petitioner arises from a
misapprehension that there is a scale to scale revision as per the
Shetty Commission report, when the revision is only based on
the post. Annexure-R-3/A, produced along with the counter
affidavit dated 12.09.2018, is specifically relied on, wherein the
Government of Bihar had provided revised scales available at
the Entry Level in which the petitioner remained, till retirement.
There is no challenge to the same.
9. In CWJC No. 9425/2018, the father of the
petitioner was initially appointed as a Munsiff and retired on
31.12.1997 from the Bihar Superior Judicial Service. The father
of the petitioner while posted as the Additional District &
Sessions Judge, by notification, produced as Annexure-1, dated
27.05.1998, was given the third level of need based promotion
and his pay scale revised to Rs.4600-150-5700. The judicial
officer was given revised pay scale of Rs.16750-400-20500
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
while the petitioner claims Rs.18750-22850/-. The defence of
the respondent is similar to that in the earlier case that the
revision is post based and not scale to scale.
10. We have perused the All India Judges'
Association (supra) case, wherein it is observed that, after
consideration of the recommendations of the 5th Pay
Commission and the pivotal role played by the subordinate
judiciary and the essential characteristics of a judicial officer,
the Shetty Commission evolved a master pay scale. As has been
noticed in the cited decision, the Shetty Commission came to
the conclusion that the number of pay scales should equal the
number of clearly identifiable levels of responsibility. After
considering all the relevant circumstances, the Commission
recommended the scales of pay, which are extracted here, from
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
(i) Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.): Rs9000-250-10,750-300-13,150-350-
14,550
(ii) Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) (I Stage ACP scale):
Rs 10,750-300-13,150-350-14,900
(iii) Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.)
(II Stage ACP scale for Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.):
Rs12,850-300-13,150-350-15,950-400-17,550
(iv) Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) (I Stage ACP scale):
Rs 14,200-350-15,950-400-18,350
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
(v) District Judges (entry level): Rs 16,750-400-19,150-450-20,500
+
(II Stage ACP scale for Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.)
(vi) District Judges (selection grade):
Rs 18,750-400-19,150-450-21,850-500-22,850
(vii) District Judges (super time scale): Rs 22,850-500-24,850
11. The revision, based on the Shetty Commission
report, has to be post based as contended by the State, High
Court and the office of the Accountant General. Annexure- R-
3/A, produced in CWJC No. 16640/2018, is the notification
issued by the Government of Bihar for the persons continuing in
the entry level of Munsiffs. On revision, the scale applicable
would be Rs.9000 - 14550. On the 1st ACP, scale applicable
would be Rs.10750-14900 and on grant of 2nd ACP, the scale
applicable would be Rs.12850 -17550, which is akin to the scale
of a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The need based promotions
and the scale of pay granted, is not a conformation of ACP.
12. The petitioner in CWJC No. 16640/2018, thus,
cannot claim a higher pay than that conferred on him. If at all,
the need based promotion had to be reckoned for the purpose of
revision of pay, the petitioner ought to have challenged the
notification Annexure-R-3/A, which was issued in the year
2001. There is no reason to entertain the claim of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
at this belated stage and the claim also is found unsustainable.
13. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner in CWJC No.
9425/2018, the father of the petitioner was granted the scale of
Rs. 16750-20500, which is the scale applicable to the District
Judge Entry Level. The judicial officer was promoted to the post
of Additional District Judge, according to the petitioner, on
01.01.1986. Annexure-1 notification dated 27.05.1998 also
confers him with promotion to the third level of need based post
on 01.01.1986. This also indicates that the promotion to the
need based post is not an ACP, since if it were an ACP conferred
on stagnation, the officer would not have been entitled to the
higher pay scale, since on the same day, he was promoted to the
higher post.
14. The petitioners had relied on the consent given by
the office of the Accountant General, and the permission
accorded by the High Court. The consent of the Accountant
General is found at Annexure-R/1 of the counter affidavit. The
learned counsel for the High Court, however, has specifically
referred to the counter affidavit filed, which speaks of the
Standing Committee of the High Court having considered the
relevant record of the officers and the father of the petitioner
was found to be not fit for promotion to the selection grade post
Patna High Court CWJC No.16640 of 2018 dt. 31-01-2024
of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service. The judicial officer hence
remained at the entry level of the Higher Judicial Service
without any career advancement and in such circumstances,
would be permitted the revision as applicable to the District
Judge Entry Level, which is Rs. 16750-20500.
15. Both the officers remained at the Entry Level and
retired; one as a Munsiff and the other as an Additional District
& Sessions Judge. The revision applicable, as per the Shetty
Commission, is that applicable to the post. The decision in
Nawal Kishore (supra) proceeds on the basis that there is no
explanation offered by the respondents. Here, the explanation is
pleaded and found credible, by us. The writ petitions are, hence,
found to be devoid of merit and both stand dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
Rajiv Roy, J: I agree.
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 23.01.2024
Uploading Date 01.02.2024
Transmission Date
