Rajendra Prasad and Anr. Vs Finance

¶1

2026:JHHC:3425

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1233 of 2015

¶3

--

¶4

Rajendra Prasad, S/O Late Salik Ram, R/O VillageHasanpur, P.SSikandra, P.SBaharia, DistrictAllahabad (U.P), At Present Statistical Assistant, Office Of Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand at Krishi Vikash Kendra, P.O- Kanke, P.SGonda, District-Ranchi

¶5

Shailesh Chandra Gupta, S/O Late Srichnadra Gupta, R/O At- Chenari, P.O & P.S- Chenari, District- Rohtas (Bihar), At Present Statistical Assistant, Office of Sub-DivisionalCum District Agriculture Officer, At Garhwa, PO & P.5Garhwa, District-Garhwa. ....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi.

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Government of Jharkhand at Nepal House, P.O & P.S- Doranda, District-Ranchi.

¶10

The Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand at Krishi Vikash Kendra, P.O-Kanke, P.SGonda, District- Ranchi

¶11

The State of Bihar.

¶12

The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar. ....Respondents

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

--

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr Rishi Pallava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C-(L&C)-II Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C to G.A.(Bihar)

¶17

-- 20/04.02.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. The instant writ application has been preferred

¶19

by the petitioners for the following reliefs:

¶20

1. For a direction upon the respondents to implement the Resolution No. 3/S.-4(Ve.Pu.)05/03 1381/Vi. Dated 26.06.2005, whereby and where under the State Government has decided to implement Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, Fitment Appellate Committee for the employees of state of Jharkhand, in its letter and spirit.

¶21

2. He further pray for a direction upon the respondents to grant the pay scale of 1600- 2780 since date of joining

¶22

1

¶23

2026:JHHC:3425

¶24

with corresponding pay Revision of 5000-8000 and also grant the scale of 6500-10500 instead of 50008000 which was given to the petitioner after 1st A.C.P along with consequential benefit including arrears of pay difference.

¶25

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are working as Statistical Assistant under the Respondent No. 4 and at present Petitioner No. 1 is posted at Office of Director, Department of Agriculture, Ranchi, whereas the Petitioner No. 2 is posted at Office of Sub-Divisional-Cum-District Agriculture Officer, Garhwa.

¶26

Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna had announced Graduation Level Special Competition Examination, 94 for appointment on different posts of graduation level in 22 different posts in the year 1994. The petitioners were having requisite qualification; hence, they filled the form and appeared in the competitive examination. Both the petitioners succeeded in the examination and were selected/allotted post of Statistical Enumerator under Agriculture Department.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, whereas the Petitioner No. 2 belongs to Most Backward Category; hence, their results allotting the post of Statistical Enumerator were published under the respective category of SC & MBC. The pay scale of all the posts were advertised and barring few posts, the pay scale for almost all the post were 16002780. The pay scale for the post under Agricultural Department was published as 1600-2780.

¶28

The advertisement of the competitive examination was for 590 posts under 22 departments. At the time of filling up the form, no option of department/post was asked from the candidates. The B.P.S.C itself allotted the department and post to the selected candidates without asking choice from them; as such, post of Statistical Enumerator was

¶29

2

¶30

2026:JHHC:3425

¶31

allotted to the petitioners by the B.P.S.C itself and the petitioners have not given any choice. Letter No. 2/A.G308/89-10691 dated 08.12.1995 at the pay scale of Rs.975-1540 which was revised as 1200-30-1800 from the date of appointment.

¶32

After bifurcation of State of Jharkhand, the petitioners were allotted the Jharkhand cadre in the year 2007; as such, they were relived from State of Bihar to join State of Jharkhand on 30/6/2007 vide letter no.314 dated 23/06/2007 and thereafter they joined in State of Jharkhand and serving in Agriculture Directorate under Agriculture and Sugarcane Department, Govt. of Jharkhand.

¶33

The petitioners have been given 1^st Assured Carrier Progression (ACP) vide order no.107 dated 21/07/2008, with effect from 12/12/07, after completion of 12 years of continuation of service and they were given pay scale of 5000-150-8000, after granting 1^st ACP.

¶34

The corresponding pay scale of 1600-27800 is 50008000, which the petitioners ought to have been granted at the time of joining and 6500-10500 after granting ACP instead of 5000-150-8000.

¶35

4. It has been informed by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that the same issue of appointment on the different post by the same competitive examination was dealt granting them same pay scale by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8419/92 (Nagendra sahani and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others) vide order dated 22/9/93.

¶36

The State of Bihar moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 22/9/93, passed in CWJC. 8419/9 2 in SLP (Civil) No. 3555/94 , which was dismissed by order dated 28/10/94.

¶37

Thereafter the erstwhile State of Bihar Government constituted the Fitment Committee by its resolution No.

¶38

3

¶39

2026:JHHC:3425

¶40

3PAR-01/98/32/V(2), dated January 2, 1998 and the Fitment Committee was set up for giving effect to the agreements which the State Government had entered into with the Employees' Associations/Federations, wherein it had expressed its agreement, "in principle" to provide central pay scales, service conditions and other facilities available at the Centre to the employees of the State Government.

¶41

The Fitment Appellate Committee submitted its report on 18.12.2000. The subject matter of the present writ petition i.e., the anomaly resulting from different pay scales being recommended by the Fitment Committee for the different Graduate level posts, appointments against on all of which are made by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the basis of a combined competitive test appears to be agitating the employees cutting across Departments was dealt and discussed by the Committee under chapter 2 of the report.

¶42

5. It has been further submitted by the rival parties that the State of Jharkhand was created on 15.11.2000 before submission of Fitment Appellate Committee Report; hence State of Bihar sent the Fitment Appellate Committee Report to the State of Jharkhand vide Letter No. 8795 dated 20.12.2000 for necessary action

¶43

The State of Jharkhand vide its Memo No. 3/S.4(Ve.Pu.)05/03 3320/Vi. dated 30.12.2003 constituted a Committee for scrutinizing the Fitment Appellate Committee Report.

¶44

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Patna High in the matter of Sunil Kumar Sinha & Others Vs State of Bihar & Other (CWJC No. 14243/2004) after considering the Nagendra Sahani Case and the Fitment Appellate Committee Recommendation observed in its order dated 13.10.2006 that the rights of the petitioners to receive the

¶45

4

¶46

2026:JHHC:3425

¶47

same pay scale as granted to any other person recruited through the same recruitment process having once been decided by this court in Nagendra Sahani's case in the course of application of the 5th pay revision committee report, the state cannot be permitted to reopen the said issue during subsequent pay revisions merely on the plea of granting central equivalence.

¶48

7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the petitioners have represented before Fitment Committee Jharkhand on 27.09.2008 for redressal of their grievances which has not taken care of.

¶49

8. He further confined his argument only to the extent that as per Justice Aftab Alam Committee the prayer made in the writ petition was justified; accordingly, their case may be considered in the light of Justice Aftab Alam Committee report and the respondents may pass an appropriate order in view of the fact that the Respondent – State themselves have accepted Justice Aftab Alam Committee report.

¶50

9. Learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the prayer of the petitioners; however, he submits that since no order has been passed; as such the petitioners may approach the Respondent No. 3, who will deliberate on the issue and pass an appropriate order.

¶51

10. After going through Annexure-3 Series, especially page nos. 83 and 84, it appears that Fitment Committee constituted by the State of Jharkhand has accepted the recommendation of Justice Aftab Alam Committee . For brevity, relevant portion of Resolution dated 26^th June, 2005 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶52

“ -3/ए ०-4 ( ० ० 05/03/1381/ ० 26 , 2005 1] :-

¶53

“ 1 ........ 2. .......

¶54

5

¶55

2026:JHHC:3425

¶56

3. गठन ग न ग न ग , -3320, न 30 , 2003 ए गठन ग न न न ग , -238, न 12 न , 2004 ग न 4 . : ए न न " " न / न न न न “

¶57

11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and looking to the confined argument of Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is having no hesitation in disposing of the matter by directing the petitioner to approach 3^rd Respondent with their claim, who shall decide the issue and prayer made in this writ application in accordance with law and applicable Rules & Regulations within a period of 16 weeks considering all the judgments which the petitioners have relied upon.

¶58

12. Ordered accordingly. If the claim of the petitioners is found to be in their favour; then, the consequential benefits shall be extended to the petitioners within a further period of 3 weeks.

¶59

13. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶60

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶61

4^th February, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 12/03/2026

¶62

6

Rajendra Prasad and Anr. v. Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad and Anr. v. Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harivansh Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand

Kulwanti Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Prakash Prasad Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

T Sudhakar Vs the Union of India through the Director General Central Industrial Security Force

Sabera Bibi Vs Mainul Sheikh