Patna High Court
Trilokee Prasad Verma vs The State Of Bihar on 24 April, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1107 of 2021
======================================================
Trilokee Prasad Verma Son of Late Shambhoo Prasad Verma Resident of Ram
Sakhi Niwas, Paraw Pokar Lane, Aam Gola, Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Kaji
Mohamadpur, Post- Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director-cum-Joint Commissioner (Accounts-Administration) Provident
Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Dy. Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department,
Bihar, Patna
5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Accountant General Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2784 of 2021
======================================================
Dharnidhar Jha Son of Late Kapileshwar Jha Resident of Village-Majhaura,
Post-Chanauraganj, P.S.-Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani, Pin-847404.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director-Cum-Joint Commissioner (Accounts-Administration),
Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Dy. Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Finance Department, Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Assistant Director, Provident Fund Director, Finance Department, Bihar,
Patna.
5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Madhubani.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
2/17
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1107 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Lalit, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Naman Nayak, AC to AAG 13
For the AG : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Rajan Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Vijeta Kumari, Adv.
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2784 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Lalit, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Naman Nayak, AC to AAG 13
For the AG : Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Rajan Prakash, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 24-04-2025
Heard Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned
Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Naman Nayak, learned
Advocate for the State and Dr. Anand Kumar, learned Advocate
for the Accountant General.
2. Considering the identical nature of relief and the
issue posed before this Court, both the applications have been
heard together and are being disposed off with this common
order. The petitioners are since aggrieved with different orders
as also the opinion rendered by the Finance Department, for the
sake of convenience, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are
separately noted hereinbelow.
3. The petitioner in CWJC No. 1107 of 2021 is the
retired Head Assistant, District Provident Fund Office,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
3/17
Muzaffarpur, and he preferred the present writ petition for the
following reliefs:
"i. For quashing of
opinion/decision dated 18-2-2020, taken
in record by the Finance Department,
contained in ANNEXURE-5, after being
forwarded the Record to the Finance
Department on/after recommendation of
Screening Committee dated 29-7-2019,
inter alea, holding/opining that the scale
of Rs.4000-6000/-is approved for Upper
Division Clerk since 1-1-1996 and
petitioner is entitle for 1st ACP in scale of
Head Clerk-Rs.5000-8000/- & 2nd ACP in
the scale of Rs.5500-9000/- but since the
scale of Rs.5500-9000/- is approved for
Sri Prasad(the petitioner) w.e.f. 1-1-1996
itself which is the 2nd higher scale of
basic scale of Rs.4000-6000/- and
therefore, the 2nd financial Upgradation
is not admissible to him (the petitioner).
ii. For quashing of
consequential Memo no.1661 dated 04-5-
2020, contained in ANNEXURE-6,
issued by the respondent-Dy. Director on
the grounds/points indicated in the
decision of Finance Department dated 18-
2-2020, contained in ANN-5, declining
the claim of petitioner for grant of ACP in
scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 09-08-
1999.
iii. Further, on grant of relief
no. i & ii, respondents may be directed to
allow ACP in the Scale of Rs. 6500-
10500/- to petitioner w.e.f. 09-08-1999
with payment of consequential arrear of
monetary benefit along with penal
interest for delayed payment @ 18% with
heavy cost for this unwanted litigation."
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
4/17
4. The petitioner in CWJC No. 2784 of 2021 was also
superannuated from the post of Head Assistant, District
Provident Fund Office, Madhubani and preferred the present
writ petition for the following reliefs:
"i. For quashing of Memo
no.1985 dated 02-6-2020, contained in
ANNEXURE-6, issued by the
respondent-Dy. Director, declining the
claim of petitioner for grant of ACP in
scale of Rs.6500-10500/-w.e.f. 09-08-
1999 on the basis of opinion/decision of
Finance Department dated 18-2-2020
saying that the scale of Rs.4000-6000/-is
approved for Upper Division Clerk w.e.f.
1-1-1996
but since the scale of Rs.5500-
9000/- is approved for Sri Jha(the
petitioner) w.e.f. 1-1-1996 itself which is
the 2nd higher scale of basic scale of
Rs.4000-6000/-and therefore, the 2nd
financial Upgradation is not admissible
to him (the petitioner).
ii. Further, on grant of relief
no. i, respondents may be directed to
allow ACP in the Scale of Rs. 6500-
10500/- to petitioner w.e.f. 09-08-1999
with payment order of consequential
arrear of monetary benefit along with
penal interest for delayed payment @
18% with heavy cost for this unwanted
litigation."
5. The relevant necessary facts, which have been
culled out from the materials available on record are
summarized hereinbelow.
(i) The petitioners were appointed long back in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
year 1967 as Correspondence Clerk under the Irrigation
Department; and after rendering services to different places,
they have been brought in Tube Well Division, Muzaffarpur and
Samastipur, respectively. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners
were also promoted on 19.01.1974 and 29.09.1973 as Head
Clerk/Upper Division Clerk by the order of the Chief Engineer
(Mech.), State Tube Well, Bihar, Patna.
(ii) Pursuant to the order of the State Government
bearing No. 844 dated 28.02.1974, the entire organization of
State Tube Well, Bihar and its offices/staff including services of
the petitioners merged in Bihar Water Development Corporation
duly constituted by the Government with clear stipulation that
all the service condition such as salary, promotion, pensionary
benefits, inter-se seniority of transfer and those retained in
Irrigation Department will remain the same.
(iii) Upon creation of Provident Fund Directorate in
1986, the State Government has placed the services of the
petitioners and several others, including Rameshwar Singh and
Ramadhar Thakur under the Provident Fund Directorate in
Finance Department, Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 1832 dated
10.03.1986. The petitioners in compliance with the order,
aforenoted, submitted their services to the office of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
Provident Fund Directorate and continued at their respective
places of posting till their superannuation.
(iv) The petitioners along with other aforenoted
similarly situated persons were accorded senior selection grade
& super time selection grade in the revised scale of Rs. 1640-
2900/- and Rs. 1800-3330/- respectively. On implementation of
the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision, the petitioners and
others were also extended the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- with
effect from 01.01.1996.
(v) Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the Provident
Fund Directorate ignoring the fact that the petitioners and others
were the Government appointees since inception and their
services were merged in Bihar Water Development Corporation
by the Government with full pay protection and now, they have
been brought under newly created Provident Fund Directorate
again by the order of the State Government. The respondent
authorities canceled their fixation of pay in the scale of Rs.
5500-9000/- at the fag end of their superannuation with a
direction to re-fix their pay in reduced pay scale, which is
approved under the Provident Fund Directorate and to recover
the excess payment.
(vi) The order of fixation/reduction of pay scale was
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
put to challenge by one Rameshwar Singh in CWJC No. 11777
of 1999, which came to be allowed on 05.09.2002. The State of
Bihar being aggrieved preferred LPA No. 81 of 2003, but the
same also stands rejected. Thereafter, SLA (Civil) No. 12806 of
2003 was also preferred by the State of Bihar, but it was also
rejected on 01.08.2003 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Similarly, the petitioner (Trilokee Prasad Verma) preferred
CWJC No. 12968 of 2003, which came to be allowed on
21.02.2005, likewise the petitioner (Dharnidhar Jha) preferred
CWJC No. 9288 of 2003 and his case was allowed on
31.08.2007. In case of Ramadhar Thakur, who preferred CWJC
No. 11985 of 2008, his case was also allowed vide order dated
08.03.2013; said Ramadhar Thakur, later on, also prayed for the
ACP, which finally came to be allowed on 19.03.2018 in LPA
No. 599 of 2015.
(vii) Placing reliance upon all the aforenoted decision,
especially the decisions rendered in the case of Ramadhar
Thakur, the petitioners preferred so many representation before
the respondent Provident Fund Directorate for extending the
benefit of ACP. However, as the matter discussed hereinabove,
and the issue was kept pending under consideration before this
Court; no decision was taken on the representation of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
petitioners and when the final order came to be passed in the
case of Ramadhar Thakur in LPA No. 599 of 2015 on
19.03.2018, the petitioners again preferred a detailed
representation with a request to extend the benefit of ACP in the
light of the decision of the learned Division Bench in case of
Ramadhar Thakur (supra) based upon parity. In the meanwhile,
the Provident Fund Directorate vide office order under Memo
No. 4888 dated 26.11.2018, allowed the benefit of ACP to
several employees, including Ramadhar Thakur in the scale of
Rs. 6500-10500/-.
(viii) Subsequently, the respondent Finance
Department while considering the claim of the petitioners, inter
alia, opined that the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- is approved for
Upper Division Clerk since 01.01.1996; hence, the petitioners
are entitled to the scale of Head Clerk for Rs. 5000-8000/- and
1st ACP in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-, with effect from
01.01.1996 itself, which is the second higher scale of basic scale
of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Hence, the second financial upgradation is
not admissible to them. Based upon the opinion rendered by the
Finance Department, the Provident Fund Directorate turned
down the claim of the petitioners for grant of ACP in the scale of
Rs. 6500-10500/- with effect from 09.08.1999 vide Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
1661 dated 04.05.2020 and Memo No. 1985 dated 02.06.2020
respectively on the grounds indicated hereinabove, which order
is also impugned herein.
(ix) It is to be noted that during the pendency of the
writ petition, the claim of the petitioners was also considered at
the level of the Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Bihar,
Patna and their respective claims have been negated under
Memo Nos. 49 dated 04.01.2021 and 39 dated 04.01.2021
respectively, on the identical ground/points as opined by the
Finance Department, declining the claim of the petitioners for
grant of ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500-, which are
also impugned herein.
6. While assailing the impugned order(s) and the
action of the concerned respondents, learned Advocate for the
petitioners has vehemently contended that apart from the
impugned orders being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory they are
also wholly without application of mind. Bare perusal of
Annexure 1 & 2 of both the writ petitions, it is demonstrative of
the fact that service condition of the petitioners as well as
Ramadhar Thakur and others are one and same under same
department, whereas Ramadhar Thakur has already been
allowed ACP in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- with effect from
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
09.08.1999 vide Memo No. 4888 dated 26.11.2018. Referring to
Annexure-2 as contained in Memo No. 5886 dated 02.07.1991,
it is further contended that admittedly the petitioners are senior
to Ramadhar Thakur as would be evident that he got super time
selection grade, much after the petitioners; that apart, the
petitioners have also passed their final departmental accounts
examination, which was necessary to get further
promotion/scale/ACP in view of the circulars of the Finance
Department. The issue of entitlement of pay scale of Rs. 5500-
9000 as on 01.01.1996, is no more in dispute, as it has attained
finality. Nonetheless, the respondent authorities erred in-law in
declining the 2nd ACP to the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 6500-
10500/- and by this way again disputed the admissibility of
grant/fixation of pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- as on 01.01.1996.
7. Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned Advocate for
the petitioners strenuously contended that the fixation of pay
scale of petitioners in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- was never
subject matter of any dispute by the respondent and grant of
scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- on 01.01.1996 is not a
higher/promotional scale, rather it was a replacement scale of
pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-; morevoer, Clause 3 (1-d) of ACP
Rule, 2003 clearly specified that financial upgradation given
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
under selection grade/time bound promotion before 01.01.1996
will not be counted for financial upgradation under this rule.
Hence, in any view of the matter, the petitioners ought to be
allowed the benefit of ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 in the
next higher scale i.e. scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-.
8. Mr. Naman Nayak, learned Advocate for the State
dispelling the aforenoted contentions of the learned Advocate
for the petitioners has submitted that while considering the
grievance of the petitioners, their names were placed before the
Screening Committee and opinion was also sought from the
Finance Department. The claim of the petitioners were duly
examined by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. It
was found that the petitioners were appointed to the post of
Correspondence Clerk and subsequently, they were promoted to
the post of Head Clerk and later on, promoted to the Senior
Selection Grade in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1360 with effect
from 01.04.1981. The petitioners were also allowed super time
selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 with effect from
01.04.1986. Based upon the aforesaid facts, the pay scale of the
petitioners were determined in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with
effect from 01.01.1996. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the
Finance Department, Government of Bihar, in the light of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
Clause 4(3) of the ACP Rules, 2003, opined that the petitioners
have already been getting the second highest pay scale with
effect from 01.01.1996. Hence, they should not be granted
financial progression.
9. In sum and substance, it is the contention of the
learned Advocate for the State, after referring the explanation of
the ACP Rules, that if an employee is appointed in scale-1 and
now he is in scale-2, then he shall be granted one more financial
progression in scale-3 under ACP scheme. In case, if an
employee's basic salary is in scale-1 at the time of his
appointment and now he placed in scale-3, then he need not be
granted any financial progression. In the case of the petitioners,
they have already extended 3rd highest pay scale with effect from
01.01.1996, so they are not entitled for next financial
progression under Clause 3(2) and 4(3) of the ACP Rules, 2003.
On the reasons discussed hereinabove, the claim of the
petitioners were duly considered and rejected by the Director,
GPF Directorate, Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
10. Learned Advocate for the State, at this stage,
further drew the attention of this Court to the second
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2-
5 and submitted that the petitioners were in the same pay scale
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
of Rs. 5500-9000/- as that of Ramadhar Thakur, who was also
getting the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, but due to inadvertence,
he has been allowed the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- as 2 nd
ACP, ignoring the provisions of Rule 3 (2) and 4 (3) of the ACP
Rules, 2003. Moreover, the reliance of the petitioners on a
decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No. 599 of 2015 would not be applicable in the case in
hand, as Rule 3(2) and 4 (3) of the ACP Rules, 2003 was not an
issue for adjudication, rather it was confined to the prerequisite
of passing of the Departmental Accounts Examination for grant
of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. The Hon'ble
Court has not given any direction regarding any specific pay
scale under 2nd ACP to the appellant (Ramadhar Thakur).
11. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the
respective parties and also perused the materials available on
record. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioners were
initially appointed as Correspondence Clerk and later on, when
the entire organization of State Tube Well along with its Officer
and Staffs were merged in Bihar Water Development
Corporation, the services of the petitioners were also transferred
to the Corporation with the similar conditions and the benefits,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
as was admissible in the Irrigation Department.
12. It would be worth noting that on a query made by
this Court vide order dated 09.11.2022 in CWJC No. 1107 of
2021 as to how the case of the petitioner is different to those of
Dharnidhar Jha, Ramadhar Thakur and other similarly situated
persons, a response has been made by filing a supplementary
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2-5. In para-3
thereof, the concerned respondents admitted the factual position
of parity but denied the claim by stating as follows:
"That at the outset it is very
humbly submitted that the case of the
petitioner stands at similar footing to the
case of Dharnidhar Jha and Ramadhar
Thakur on the facts and all of them are
entitled for grant of ACP without fulfilling
the requirement of passing the account
examination due to lack of promotional
avenue. However, the pay scale of Rs.
6500-10500/- being claimed by way of 2nd
ACP over and above the pay scale of Rs.
5500-9000/- is incorrect. Their ACP
entitlements are covered under clause
3(2) and 4 (3) of the ACP Rules 2003."
13. On account of creation of Provident Fund
Directorate in the year 1986, the services of the petitioners and
several others, including Rameshwar Singh and Ramadhar
Thakur, were also brought in the Provident Fund Directorate.
There is no dispute with regard to the position obtained by the
petitioners that they were shown senior to Ramadhar Thakur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
The petitioners were also extended the benefit of senior
selection grade and super time selection grade, which were duly
accepted by the Provident Fund Directorate and thus allowed the
revised pay scale on Rs. 1640-2900/-. On implementation of the
recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision, the petitioners were
allowed the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with effect from
01.01.1996, which is the corresponding scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-
i.e. made applicable with effect from 01.01.1996. It is this pay
scale, which was cancelled by the Government and put to
challenge before this Court in various writ petitions, including
CWJC No. 11777 of 1999, CWJC No. 12968 of 2003, CWJC
No. 9288 of 2003 and CWJC No. 11985 of 2008, wherein, the
Court has quashed the decision of the Provident Fund
Department reducing the pay scale/recovery order(s). The issue
was taken to the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally given quietus
in favour of the petitioners and other identically situated
persons.
14. From a careful reading of Memo no. 5886 dated
02.07.1991 (Annexure-2) to the writ petition, it would be
evident that such pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and 1800-3330
was extended to the petitioners in compliance with the Finance
Department letter no. 2791 dated 18.05.1991 and was made
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
effective till holding of the posts of Senior Selection Grade and
Super Time Selection Grade, extended only to the petitioners
and others, who were in the Provident Fund Directorate, which
order, as contained in the letter dated 02.07.1991 has never been
modified rather given effect to in case of Ramadhar Thakur and
others by allowing them to the pay scale of 6500-10500 by way
of 2nd ACP.
15. It would also be gainsaying here that the entire
case of the petitioners is based on parity with that of Ramadhar
Thakur, who has been accorded the benefit of 2nd ACP in the pay
scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Once, the respondent authorities have
failed to differentiate the case of the petitioners with that of
Ramadhar Thakur, whose services have also been brought in the
Provident Fund Directorate from the Corporation and till date,
no rectification order has been passed in case of Ramadhar
Thakur, this Court finds no reason or occasion not to allow the
identical benefit to the petitioners.
16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, as
also the special facts of the case, which do not attract the legal
hurdle as disclosed in the counter affidavit and supplementary
counter affidavit; and the case of the petitioners squarely based
on parity with that of Ramadhar Thakur, this Court finds no
Patna High Court CWJC No.1107 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
reason or occasion not to allow the identical benefits to the
petitioners.
17. Accordingly, this Court finds substance in the writ
petitions and set-aside the impugned orders as noted in
paragraph no. 1 of the writ petitions as well as in the
interlocutory applications.
18. The respondent authorities are directed to accord
the similar benefits, as has been accorded to Ramadhar Thakur,
preferably within a period of twelve weeks, from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
19. The writ petitions as well as the I.A.(s) stand
allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed off.
21. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 25.03.2025
Uploading Date 28.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
