Judicial Orders Of Patna High Court Would Bind Successor State: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Officer Whose Services Were Allocated To State Of Jharkhand

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an employee challenging the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court. The dispute between the parties related to the grant of a higher pay scale to the Employee after the removal of anomalies in the pay scale, on parity with other similarly situated persons who had already been granted the said benefit by the Respondent–Employer.

The Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held, “The statutory provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, particularly Section 34(4), mandate that judicial orders of the Patna High Court continue to bind the Successor State. The judgment in Nagendra Sahani (Supra), which granted identical relief to similarly situated employees inducted through a common recruitment process that took place in erstwhile Bihar, therefore has binding effect to an employee of the same recruitment allocated to the State of Jharkhand in respect of the Appellant.”

Advocate Sudhanshu S. Pandey represented the Appellant, while AOR Shantanu Sagar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appeal before the Apex Court arose out of the recruitment process initiated by the State of Bihar for filling up Graduate-level Non-gazetted Class-III vacancies of sixteen posts in various departments, including the post of Industries Extension Officer (IEO), by way of a common competitive examination conducted by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board in the year 1981. The appellant was duly selected and came to be appointed as IEO in 1992, in the pay scale of Rs 1400-2600. Upon the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission in December 1989, the disparity persisted as ten posts were placed in the higher pay scale of ₹1600-2780, while the remaining six posts continued in the pay scale of ₹1500-2750.

This differential treatment, despite the common recruitment examination sans allotment based on merit-cum-preference method, became the subject of litigation before the Patna High Court in Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar (1992), wherein the Division Bench held that there was no reasonable classification to justify the disparity caused by fixing two different pay scale for these similarly situated persons recruited on the same posts and directed that all incumbents of these sixteen posts be placed in the higher pay scale of ₹1600-2780 with effect from January 1, 1986. In the meantime, the Fitment Appellate Committee examined the anomaly afresh and recommended the uniform revised scale of ₹5000-8000 for all sixteen posts. Relying on the judgment in Nagendra Sahani (Supra) and the Fitment Appellate Committee’s report, the Appellant addressed representations to the Respondent Employer in 2001 and 2002, seeking a grant of the larger scale of pay from the date of his appointment. However, these representations were rejected.

In the meantime, by promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2003, the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the territory of the State of Bihar, and the services of the Appellant, who was earlier appointed by the State of Bihar, were allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The Appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Jharkhand, praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ to the Respondent-Employer to grant him a pay scale as genuine in place of the anomaly in the pay scale in parity with other similarly situated persons. The Single Judge directed the State to revise the Appellant’s pay scale accordingly from the date of his appointment, with arrears and consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge, the Respondent-Employer preferred LPA. Setting aside the judgment of the Single Bench, the Division Bench reasoned that the writ petition suffered from an inordinate delay of 20 years after the respondent’s initial appointment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Section 34(4) provides for the dual effect of orders passed by the High Court at Patna. It stipulates that any order made by the High Court at Patna, whether before the appointed day in proceedings subsequently transferred to the High Court of Jharkhand under sub-section (2), or in proceedings with respect to which the High Court at Patna retained jurisdiction under sub-section (3) "shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of the High Court at Patna, but also as an order made by the High Court of Jharkhand." The Bench thus stated, “This deeming provision is of seminal importance to the present case. The judgment in Nagendra Sahani (supra), though rendered by the High Court at Patna on 22.09.1993 i.e., before the State re- organization, nonetheless, it must be treated by virtue of Section 34(4) as binding precedent of the High Court of Jharkhand.”

The Bench was of the view that the Division Bench could not have ignored the ratio of Nagendra Sahani (Supra) while stating it to have merely a persuasive value. “Once it is established that the factual matrix is identical and the legal issue involved is the same, the principle of judicial discipline demands that similar relief be granted to similarly situated persons”, it added.

Coming to the aspect of delay and laches, the Bench stated, “It is well-established that in matters involving pay scale parity based on removal of anomalies, the cause of action continues from month to month as long as the anomaly persists. Every month when the employee receives lesser pay than his similarly situated counterparts constitutes a fresh cause of action.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Appellant had made representations to the employer in 2001and 2002, which were rejected only on September 13, 2004. The writ petition was filed in 2005, within a reasonable time after the rejection of his representations. As per the Bench, while observing that the writ-petitioner claimed the benefits after 20 years of entering into service, the Division Bench failed to appreciate that the Appellant was not sleeping over his rights but was pursuing the remedies available to him through appropriate representations before approaching the Court.

“The plea of delay and laches cannot be sustained in a case involving continuing violation of rights that too in the light of the nature of directions issued in rem. The Appellant's consistent pursuit of his claim through representations and the timely filing of the writ petition after their rejection shows that he was not sleeping over his rights. Moreover, financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees against arbitrary discrimination. The State, being the model employer, cannot plead its own inefficiency or negligence to deny legitimate rights to its employees. The recommendations of various committees acknowledging the anomaly only reinforces the constitutional obligation to remove the discrimination”, it stated.

Thus, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the Bench restored the judgment of the Single Judge.“The directions as contained in the judgement of the learned Single Judge be now complied within three months from the date of this judgement. The appellant is also entitled to the cost of litigation as per rules”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1445)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Sudhanshu S. Pandey, AOR Gaichangpou Gangmei, Advocates Arjun D. Singh, Roshan Kumar, Maitreya Mahaley, Yimyanger Longkumer,Kamei Bestman Kabui

Respondent: AOR Shantanu Sagar, Advocate Anil Kumar

Click here to read/download Judgment