The petitioners challenged a 1998 letter sanctioning posts for Assistant Public Prosecutors on grounds of erroneous pay scaling. The court dismissed the writ as fatally delayed and observed the letter did not fix pay but sanctioned posts.
Writ application dismissed; no interference with the letter dated 13.10.1998.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.92 of 2018
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madan Prasad Singh No-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N. H. Khan-Sc1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-09-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel.
2. The petitioners seek quashing of the letter dated 13.10.1998 whereby and whereunder the Home (Police) Department has sanctioned posts in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Supertime Scale for Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs).
3. It is submitted by petitioners’ counsel that the petitioners are entitled to Junior Selection Grade, Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.92 of 2018 dt.23-09-2022 2/5
Selection Grade and Supertime Scale, attached to the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000. The pay fixation, therefore, determined by the impugned order 13.10.1998, is erroneous and unsustainable. It is contrary to the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee dated 08.02.1996, pursuant to the 5th Pay Revision Committee report dated 18.10.1989.
4. In terms of the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee, petitioners claim Junior Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 3000-45000, Senior Selection Grade in the scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and Supertime Scale in the scale of Rs. 4100-5300. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the above noted scale in terms of the judgment dated 30.06.1997 passed in CWJC No. 11703 of 1992 in the case of Murlidhar Iswar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, raises a preliminary objection regarding the writ petition being barred by delay and laches. Having said so, it is stated that the Pay Anomaly Committee had not made any specific recommendation for APP in respect of pay scale for Junior Selection Grade-APP, Senior Selection Grade-APP or Supertime Scale-APP. The Government has fixed these three scales under communication dated 20.09.1997 bearing No. 10192
Patna High Court CWJC No.92 of 2018 dt.23-09-2022 3/5
(Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit). The said determination has never been assailed by the petitioners. Judgment in the case of Murlidhar Iswar (supra), relied upon by the petitioners’ counsel, does not direct for grant of Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade or Supertime Scale attached to the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000, instead of Rs. 2200-4000 to APP. The three scales claimed by the petitioners are in fact attached to the pay scale of Rs. 2400-4000, whereas the basic scale of petitioners-APPs is Rs. 2200-4000.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court would find that the petitioners are seeking to assail, the sanction of posts in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Supertime Scale under letter dated 13.10.1998, by filing a writ petition in the year 2018, i.e., after 20 years. They have never challenged the determination of pay scale benefits in these three grades as per communication dated 20.09.1997. It is also not the case of the petitioners that Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Supertime Scale in the scales of Rs. 30004500, Rs. 3700-5000 and Rs. 4100-5300, have been paid to anyone till date.
7. The petitioners have not disputed or denied the stand of the respondent in the counter-affidavit with respect to
Patna High Court CWJC No.92 of 2018 dt.23-09-2022 4/5
their entitlement based on letter dated 20.09.1997. They are also not in a position to point out that any other specific scale in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade or Supertime Scale was recommended by the Pay Anomaly Committee for the post of APP.
8. The stand of the respondents in the counteraffidavit as regards petitioners’ entitlement in respect of these three grades has also not been denied or disputed by filing any affidavit.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the fixation of scale under the impugned letter dated 13.10.1998 is wrong and unsustainable. This Court would find that letter dated 13.10.1998 is not a letter regarding pay fixation. By this communication, number of post falling in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Supertime scale was sanctioned.
10. In fact pay fixation in Junior Selection Grade, Senior Selection Grade and Supertime Scale had already been prescribed under letter dated 20.09.1997 bearing number 10192 (Annexure-A) issued by the Home (Police) Department in compliance with the decision of this Court in the case of Murlidhar Ishwar (supra) as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.92 of 2018 dt.23-09-2022 5/5
| Posts | Pay Scale | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assistant Public Prosecutor (Basic Grade) |
2200-4000 |
| 2 | Junior Selection Grade, Asst. Public Prosecutor |
2400-4150 |
| 3 | Senior Selection Grade, Asst. Public Prosecutor |
3000-4500 |
| 4 | Supertime Selection Grade, Asst. Public Prosecutor |
3700-5000 |
This fixation has never been assailed by the petitioners till
date.
11. The facts and circumstances of the case noted above, after due consideration of the records and submissions of the parties, this Court would observe that the writ petition is misconceived. This Court does not find any merit in the writ application necessitating interference with the impugned letter dated 13.10.1998 or for grant of any positive directions in favour of the petitioners.
12. Writ application is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
SUMIT/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 23.09.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed 20 years after the impugned order is barred by delay and laches.
Whether the letter dated 13.10.1998 relates to pay fixation or merely sanctions of posts.
Whether the petitioners can claim entitlement to specific pay scales that were never challenged before.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Murlidhar Iswar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Explained¶26
CWJC No. 11703 of 1992
Murlidhar IshwarDistinguished¶29
CWJC No. 11703 of 1992
Krishnadeo Das and Ors
The State Of Bihar and Ors
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
