Ramchandra Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

2025:JHHC:37423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 653 of 2014

Ramchandra Ojha, son of late N.N. Ojha, residing of Vatayan, Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.: Harmu, P.S.: Argora, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand;

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Head Quarter, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;

¶8

State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary Home, Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, P.O: Secretariat, P.S: Secretariat, Dist: Patna;

¶9

Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Head Quarter, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;

¶10

Home Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Head Quarter, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;

¶11

Home Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, P.O: Secretariat, P.S: Secretariat, Dist: Patna;

¶12

Finance Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Head Quarter, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;

¶13

Chairman, Fitment Committee, regarding the implementation of the Central Pay Scale as recommended by the 5^th Pay Commission, Sector-II, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O.: Dhurwa, P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi;

¶14

Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi.

¶15

… … Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶18

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate : Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, Advocate For State of Jharkhand : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV For the State of Bihar : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate ---

¶19

12 /12.12.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶20

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶21

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the order dated 05.10.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Respondent No.3 herein, vide Memo No. 4067 whereby and where under Respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for granting the pay scale of Rs. 14000-18300.

¶22

And

¶23

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the anomaly committed by the Fitment Committee in the pay scale of

¶24

1

¶25

2025:JHHC:37423

¶26

Divisional Commandant, Home Guards equivalent to additional Superintendent of Police as well as equivalent to Superintendent of Police vide resolution dated 08.02.1999 of Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, whereby and where under the Fitment Committee in course or implementing Central Pay Scale to the employee of the State of Bihar/Jharkhand recommended the revised scale of pay for substantive post of Divisional Commandant (equivalent of Additional Superintendent of Police) at Rs. 10000-15200 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which is the replacement pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 whereas the exitent scale of pay of this substantive post w.e.f 01.03.1989 was 3700-5000, which is clear from the Notification No. 3815/95 dated 12.08.1996 of the Home Special Department, Govt. of Bihar issued in compliance of the Hon'ble Patna High Court's order dated 15.12.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8023 of 1993, the replacement scale of which should have been 1200016500. It is also clear from the above Notification of the Home Special Department that the prevalent scale of Pay of the substantive post of Divisional Commandant equivalent to Superintendent of Police prior to the above resolution came into force was Rs. 4100-5300 replacement scale of which should have been Rs. 14300-18300. It was done mistakenly by considering the above mentioned substantive post merely as a post converted for the purpose of implementing provisions of selection grade scheme of things. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300 only w.e.f. 30.03.1996 because he was promoted from this date to a substantive Post of Divisional Commandant whose existent pay scale was 41005300.

¶27

(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents (Govt. of Jharkhand as well as Govt. of Bihar) to remove the disparities created by them in the Pay Scale of the two categories of Posts of Divisional Commandants with the corresponding equivalent posts of State Police Organization whereas the equivalence of the Posts of Home Guards Organization with that of the Police with regards to Pay & Status was Govt’s own creation through various notifications and which was affirmed on oath by the Govt. of Bihar in Para 18 & 22 of the writ petition CWJC case no. 3692 of 1986 of Hon'ble Patna High Court wherein it has clearly iterated that the ranks of the various posts in the Home Guards organization were equated with those of the State Police only for the purpose of Pay Scale and status.

¶28

(D) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents

¶29

2

¶30

2025:JHHC:37423

¶31

(Govt. of Jharkhand as well as Govt. of Bihar) to issue similar notification for raising the pay scale of two categories of Posts of Divisional Commandants one equivalent to Addl. Superintendent of Police and another equivalent to the Superintendent of Police as it has been raised for the Corresponding equivalent Posts of State Police organization vide Bihar/ Jharkhand Govt. notification no 16353 dated 29.12.99, notification no 5331 dated 11.11.2003 and letter 2674 dated 4.08.2009.

¶32

A copy of Bihar Govt. Notification no 16353 dated 29.12.99 and Jharkhand Govt., Department of Home notification no. 5331 dated 11.11.2003 and letter no 6/ S F.C) -01/2009/ 2674/F dated 4.8.2009 where in it is clear the pay scale of Addl. Superintendent of Police has been fixed as 12000-16500 with the date of notification and 15600-39100 (grade pay-7600) w.e.f 01.01.06 and that of Superintendent of Police it has been fixed as 14300-18300 with date of notification and 3740067000 (grade pay-8700) w.e.f. 01.01. 2006.

¶33

(e) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to fix/provide the Petitioner the pay scale at par with Superintendent of Police which is Rs. 14300-18300 from the date the Petitioner was promoted to the substantive post of Divisional Commandant equivalent to the rank of Superintendent of Police (from the post of Divisional Commandant equivalent to the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police) in view of above Resolution of the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar and above facts.

¶34

And

¶35

(f) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents for fixing the pay scale of Divisional Commandant, Home Guards at par with corresponding rank of Bihar/Jharkhand Police Service w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the same manner and in the same fashion as it existed prior to the implementation of Central Pay Scale to the State Govt. employees w.e.f 01.01.1996.

¶36

And

¶37

(g) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to provide the consequential benefit to the Petitioner after rectifying the anomaly in his pay scale.

¶38

And

¶39

(h) Pass any other order /writ/direction as your Lordship may deem fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law.”

¶40

3

¶41

2025:JHHC:37423

¶42

3. On 07.11.2025, when the case was taken up, following order was passed:

¶43

“2. The matter relates to fixation of pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the post of the petitioner was always treated at par with Superintendent of Police but subsequently upon his promotion, he was put at the lower pay scale.

¶44

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that at one stage, the matter was referred to the Fitment committee, 6th pay revision, but no relief could not be granted to the petitioner as the pay anomaly was relatable to previous pay revision.

¶45

4. The learned counsel has submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, filed by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 84 of 2009, the petitioner was relegated to file a representation and then it was referred by the department to the fitment appellate committee but the appellate committee refused to redress the grievance of the petitioner by observing that the petitioner was seeking pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and his request related to 5th pay fitment committee regime/period which was not the terms of reference of the concerned committee and ultimately the order was passed in contained in Annexure-18 by the Home department of the State of Jharkhand dated 05.10.2010 which was against the petitioner and is under challenge in the present proceedings.”

¶46

4. When the case was taken up on 07.11.2025, it was brought to the notice of this Court that a permanent committee to deal with pay anomaly is working under the Finance Department and the matter relating to pay anomaly being technical in nature, is required to be first looked into by the Pay Anomaly Committee. Consequently, the respondent- State was directed to seek instructions and file a counteraffidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 6 indicating as to whether the grievance of the petitioner can be referred to Pay Anomaly Committee. Pursuant to such order, an affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 6 has been filed.

¶47

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has referred to paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2025, to submit that at present vide departmental notification

¶48

4

¶49

2025:JHHC:37423

¶50

no. 2028 dated 20.08.2025, a committee has been formed to perform the duties assigned to it with respect scrutinizing the claim of pay anomaly received by the department. The learned counsel has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the petitioner to raise his grievance before the departmental high-level committee which is the aforesaid committee and the grievance shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶51

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if an appropriate order to that effect is passed. However, he submits that some observation may be made for expeditious disposal of the grievance of the petitioner as the petitioner has retired way back in the year 2010 and is suffering from ailments.

¶52

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the core grievance which is involved in the present case relating to pay anomaly, this Court is of the view that the matter is to be first scrutinized by the committee as referred to in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit dated 04.12.2025 filed by the respondents.

¶53

8. Accordingly, without going into the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the aforesaid committee for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner shall file a representation along with a copy of this order before the aforesaid departmental high-level committee within a period of 1 (one) month from today, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if such a prayer for hearing is made in the representation. The committee shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of filing of the representation.

¶54

9. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition may itself be treated as a part of the representation as the entire grievance of the petitioner has been narrated in the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is observed that appropriate prayer to this effect be made by the petitioner in the representation itself and if such a prayer is made, the entire writ records be annexed

¶55

5

¶56

2025:JHHC:37423

¶57

along with the representation and the writ petition be treated as a part of the representation.

¶58

10. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶59

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶60

Date of order: 12^th December 2025 Pankaj Date of uploading:05.01.2026