Patna High Court
Rabindra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 27 March, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11812 of 2021
======================================================
Rabindra Singh, Son of Late Bashistha Narayan Singh, Resident of Village-
Chaumukha, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, Town and District Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Development Commissioner-Cum-Chairman (Executive Committee)
Bihar Council of Science and Technology, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science and Technology,
Government of Bihar Cum Secretary, Bihar Council on Science and
Technology (Head of the Institutions) Cum Vice Chairman (Executive
Committee) Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Patna.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Administration, Bihar, Patna.
6. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, BCST and Secretary (Executive
Committee) Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
7. Project Director, Bihar Council of Science and Technology, IGSC,
Planetarium Campus, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhas Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, GA- 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-03-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated
13.04.2021
, as contained in Memo No. B.C.S.T.-211, issued
under the signature of the Secretary, Executive Committee,
Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Patna (hereinafter
referred to as the 'BCST') whereby the date of extending the
benefit of 7th Pay Commission has been shifted from 01.04.2017
to 01.10.2020. The petitioner also sought quashing of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
order/letter dated 17.06.2021 contained in resolution No.
BCST-EST-04/2016-270 issued by the Project Director, Bihar
Council on Science and Technology, Patna, whereby the claim
of the petitioner for extending the benefit of 7th Pay Commission
has been negated.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has primarily
drawn the attention of this Court to the appointment letter, as
contained in Annexure-3, and submitted that the petitioner was
duly appointed as Senior Office Assistant by the Project
Director of the Bihar Council on Science and Technology,
Government of Bihar, Patna with a clear stipulation that he shall
be entitled to dearness and others allowances admissible from
time to time at par with the State Government employee. The
rules regarding employees of the Bihar Council on Science and
Technology has been sent to the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms and on being found the employees of
the BCST at par with the employees of the State Government
they have been extended the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision
with effect from the date of their entitlement, as has been
granted to other Government employees.
4. After taking this Court through various annexures
and the notings of the file, emphasis has been made that the
employees of the BCST have also been treated at par with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
employees of the State Government. However, with respect to
the benefit of 7th Pay Revision Commission discrimination has
been caused; the employees of the State Government have been
granted the benefits of 7th Pay Revision with effect from
01.04.2017 but the employees of the BCST have been allowed
the benefit w.e.f 01.10.2020. It has been urged before this Court
that the BCST is not an autonomous body and in fact an integral
council of the State, hence the denial of the benefit of 7 th Pay
Revision by shifting the date from 01.04.2017 to 01.10.2020 is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and fit to be declared unsustainable.
5. Counter affidavit as well as the supplementary
counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3,
6 and 7.
6. Learned Advocate for the State primarily referring
to the resolution No. 3A-2-Ve Pu-09/2016-3590/F dated
24.05.2017 has contended that the revision of pay structure
came into effect notionally from 01.01.2016 and the actual
payment of the revised scale would be made available w.e.f.
01.04.2017, but the same was only applicable to the employees
of the State Government. The petitioner being the employee of
the BCST, the same is not applicable to him; moreover the State
Government has notified and taken a decision regarding
establishment of Council long back on 25.02.1984. In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
meeting of the Council held on 05.06.1984, a Memorandum of
Association was adopted. Accordingly, the Council has formally
registered as an autonomous body under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The affairs of the Council is governed
by the Executive Committee and whose decision is binding on
the employees of the BCST. The employees of the BCST are
getting the benefits of EPFO and the services of the BCST are
not pensionable similar to the State Government employees;
and, in fact, the decision of the Executive Committee of the
BCST shall be applicable to the petitioner.
7. Learned Advocate for the State has further taken
this Court through the averments made in the counter affidavit
and submitted that the Executive Committee in its meeting
dated 08.02.2020 unanimously resolved that the revised pay
scale of Class III and Class IV employees of the BCST, BIRSA
and IGSC- Planetarium as per the recommendation of the 7 th
PRC shall be applicable notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the
actual payment of the revised pay structure shall be made
available from 01.10.2020 from their respective funds with a
condition that the State Government will not bear the financial
burden.
8. Since the writ petitioner has already superannuated
on 31.01.2019 from the post of Senior Office Assistant, hence
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of 7 th Pay
Revision is not justified and it came to be negated. It is also
contended that the notings of the file on which reliance has been
placed is an incomplete noting and the said proposal has never
attained finality, much less ever culminated into conscious
decision by the State Government. It has further been clarified
that the BCST gives salary to its employees from its own fund
and any revision of pay scale leading to higher salary and its
arrears shall be exclusively borne by the BCST. Thus,
considering the financial burden, the Council has taken a
unanimous decision to extend the benefits of 7 th Pay Revision
w.e.f. 01.10.2020 from its own funds, which is also evident from
the minutes of the meeting proceeding of 86th Executive
Committee of the BCST held on 08.02.2020 which is also
marked as Anneuxre-R/1 to the counter affidavit.
9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after
going through the materials available on record, this Court finds
that the petitioner has failed to bring any persuasive document
in support of his claim that the employees of the BCST are also
akin to the employees of the State Government. Copy of the
Memorandum of Association, which has been placed on record
by filing supplementary counter affidavit left no doubt that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
Council shall be an autonomous institution and in this regard the
Government resolution notifying the decision of the State
Government regarding the establishment of the Council had
already been issued on 25th February, 1984 in the first meeting
of the Council held in June 1984; the Memorandum of
Association was adopted and accordingly the Council has been
formally registered as an autonomous body under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860.
10. It is the Executive Committee of the BCST who
regulates the affairs of the Council and on being authorised
under the Memorandum of Association the Executive
Committee has taken a unanimous decision on 08.02.2020 to
adopt the recommendation of the 7th Pay Revision Commission
w.e.f. 01.01.2016 but resolved to extend the benefit of revised
pay structure w.e.f. 01.10.2020 from its own funds and
resources with a clear stipulation that the State Government will
not bear the financial burden. Mere extending any benefit of Pay
Revision at par with the employees of the State Government by
the Council, who is having autonomous entity, in no
circumstances, ruled that the employees of the Council shall be
treated as the employees of the State Government.
11. So far the reliance of the petitioner on the notings
of the file is concerned, the same has no legal sanctity unless a
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
final decision has been taken based upon such noting. This issue
has already been clarified in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. [AIR 1963 SC 395], wherein the Court
held that the notings in the note file do not have behind them the
sanction of law as an effective order. The aforesaid proposition
of law has further been reiterated subsequently in the case of
Union of India & Another vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal &
Anr. reported in [(2010) 2 SCC 422]. It would be worth
benefiting to encapsulate the relevant paragraph hereinbelow:
"18. An order would be deemed
to be a government order as and when it is
issued and publicised. Internal
communications while processing a matter
cannot be said to be orders issued by the
competent authority unless they are issued
in accordance with law. In this regard,
reliance may be placed on the decision of
this Court in State of Bihar v. Kripalu
Shankar [(1987) 3 SCC 34, wherein this
Court observed, in para 16 and 17, as
follows:
"16. Viewed in this light, can it be
said that what is contained in a notes
file can ever be made the basis of an
action either in contempt or in
defamation. The notings in a notes
file do not have behind them the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11812 of 2021 dt.27-03-2025
sanction of law as an effective order.
It is only an expression of a feeling
by the officer concerned on the
subject under review. x x x"
12. It is also made clear that the Council having
autonomous in nature is free to take a decision to accept the
recommendation of the Pay Revision Commission with effect
from the date fixed by them considering their financial capacity
and stability once the benefit is to be extended from the internal
resources.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and
the proposition of law, this Court does not find any merit in the
present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.03.2025
Transmission Date
