Dismissed¶33

Uma Bharti v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Mar 2025L.P.A/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: pay-scale parity; equal pay for same/similar work; Lady Extension Officer; Level-6 vs Level-7; Pay Commission recommendation; supervisory posts; Government resolution fixing Level-6; P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General (2003) 2 SCC 632; Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (2021 SCC Online SC 1282); L.P.A No.28 of 2022 in CWJC No.6494 of 2021; Patna High Court; oral judgment of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar with Justice Partha Sarthy dated 04-03-2025; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge rightly rejected the appellant's claim, having based its decision on the dictum of the Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant General & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 632 and Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru Vs. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others (2021 SCC Online SC 1282).

Uma Bharti Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.28 of 2022 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6494 of 2021

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Uma Bharti, Daughter of Lakshmi Narayan Mahto, Resident of Shivaji Nagar, Basant Ganj, P.O. Lalbagh, P.S. - Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

Principal Secretary, Personal and Administrative Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶10

Secretary, Rural Development Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

======================================================

¶13

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pratap Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Rastogi (AAG-10) For the State : Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG-13

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶17

Date : 04-03-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Pratap Sharma, the learned Advocate

¶19

for the appellant and Mr. Parijat Saurav, the learned counsel for the State.

¶20

The appellant is a Lady Extension Officer, who had sought the pay-scale of Level-7, which is being paid

¶21

to the Extension Officers of Trade and Commerce

¶22

Patna High Court L.P.A No.28 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025 2/3

¶23

Department.

¶24

The contention of the appellant before the

¶25

learned Single Judge was that the Special Secretary to the Government had communicated with the Principal Secretary of Finance Department that the Extension Officers of Trade and Commerce Department perform the same work as the Lady Extension Officers and therefore they should be afforded the same pay-scale.

¶26

However, such a suggestion was not accepted by the Government on the ground that for Lady Extension Officers, the level of pay suggested by the Pay Commission was Level-6 and not Level-7, which level of pay-scale was exclusively given to the Extension Officers of Trade and Commerce Department considering their posts to be supervisory.

¶27

The learned Single Judge rightly rejected the claim of the appellant, basing its decision on the dictum of the Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant General & Ors.; (2003) 2 SCC 632 and

¶28

Patna High Court L.P.A No.28 of 2022 dt.04-03-2025 3/3

¶29

Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru Vs. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others; 2021

¶30

SCC Online SC 1282 .

¶31

Post the Government resolution of putting the appellant and other officers on the same ilk under the pay-scale of Level-6, there is no further scope of any discussion on the afore-noted issue.

¶32