Allowed

Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Jan 2009CWJC/6597/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, deputed employees from Boards/Corporations to State Treasuries, challenged terms denying them revised pay scales and arrears granted to parent employers. The court held they are entitled to arrears from the date of deputation based on such revisions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners held entitled to all arrears of revised pay scale from the date of revision by parent Board/Corporation to date of absorption.

Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.6597 of 2002
 AWADHESH SHARMA & ORS
 Versus
 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
 -----------

¶2

For the Petitioners : M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi and Sitesh
 Chandra Mishra, Advocates

¶3

For the State : Mr Vipin Kumar, Assistant Counsel to
 Advocate General
-------

¶4

23.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.

¶5

The petitioners were the employees of State Boards and Corporations. They were sent on deputation to the different Treasuries in the State of Bihar. The terms of their deputation are contained in Annexure 2 dated 24.8.1996. Relevant for the present controversy is Clause 4 thereof that persons like the petitioners would not be entitled to any pay scale other than that being drawn by them in the Boards/Corporations from which they had come on deputation.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Government denied them the revision of pay scale given to its own employees performing similar works on the posts on which the petitioners had been deputed. Simultaneously the respondents also denied to the petitioners any wage revision in pursuance of the revision of their pay scale in the Corporation from which they had come on deputation. He relied upon an order of this Court reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 31 (Bihar Rajya Koshagar Avam Lekha Pratiniyukta Karmchari Sangh & others Vrs The State of Bihar & ors), to submit that they are entitled to such pay protection. Additionally it was urged that the Government has now taken a policy decision dated 8.3.2006 and

¶7

¶8

24.4.2007 for absorption in government service of persons like the petitioners who came on deputation from the Boards/Corporation, on specified conditions laid down in the policy for absorption. He assails that part of the policy decision which shows that no arrears shall be payable prior to the date of policy decision and that the petitioners shall be entitled to their arrears from the date of deputation in the pay scale on which they came notwithstanding the revision of their pay scale by the parent employer, the Board or the Corporation, as the case may be.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the State urged that revision of pay scales of the persons like the petitioners in their parent Board/Corporation did not find favour with the Finance Department. He is however not in a position to inform the court as to ultimately what final decision was taken on that matter.

¶10

A Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Rajya Koshagar Avam Lekha Pratiniyukta Karmchari Sangh and others (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners while considering the issue of absorption of such deputationist from the Boards and Corporation while directing for absorption, and presumably in pursuance of which the policy decision has been issued, has held that the benefit of pay protection that such persons had been receiving in the Board/Corporation shall also be available.

¶11

To this Court, the matter can be seen from another aspect also. The petitioners may have been drawing a particular sacale in the Board/Corporation, their parent employer. They came on deputation to the State Government. The terms of their

¶12

¶13

deputation specifies that they shall get only pay scale being given to them by the Board or the Corporation. That the State Government may revise the pay scale to its own employee perhaps may not bring any direct relief to the petitioners. But, once the parent employer of the petitioners, the Board/Corporation revises their pay scale the terms of the deputation automatically get altered to that extent. It will not only be unreasonable but also arbitrary if their pay scale in the original Board/Corporation is revised, the government servants discharging similar duties on which they have been deputed gets

¶14

revised pay scale and a separate class of the petitioners is created by relying upon their term of deputation that notwithstanding the aforesaid two aspects they have to rot on the pay scale on which they came irrespective of all considerations. This Court declines to hold so.

¶15

The petitioners are therefore held entitled to all arrears of their pay of the scale payable to them as may have been revised by their parent Board/Corporation in accordance with law from the date of such revision. They shall be entitled to the difference of the same from the date of deputation till the date of absorption. Let such arrears be ascertained in accordance with law and paid to the petitioners within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶16

In view of the policy decision of the State Government as noticed above there is no occasion for this Court to dwell upon

¶17

¶18

the policy decision of the Government in this regard at Annexure

¶19

8 series.

¶20

The writ application stands disposed with the dir4ecdtions

¶21

and observations indicated above.

¶22

Snkumar/-

¶23

(Navin Sinha,J.)

Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Sharma and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Ram Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anupam Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shankar Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Muneshwar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shyama Nand Mandal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dayanand Ayurvedic Medical Col Vs the Union of India and Ors.