A K OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are members of the Bihar Judicial Service. Petitioner No. 1 is a recruit of 19th batch, petitioners 2 and 3 are recruits of 20th batch and petitioners 4 and 5 are recruits of 21st batch. They were all appointed after 12.10.1982. Petitioners in the second case are also members of the Bihar Judicial Service, petitioner No. 11 is the Officiating Secretary of the Bihar Judicial Service Association. Petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 are recruits of the 19th batch, petitioners 6, 7, 8 and 9 are recruits of 20th batch and petitioners 10 to 19 are recruits of 21st batch. Petitioners have sued, in a representative capacity, the respondents who have, according to the petitioners, declined to implement the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee which has worked against the interest of the service and which according to the petitioners amount to denial of equality of opportunity of employment and violation of equal protection of law and equality before it.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the 4th Pay Revision Committee was appointed by the respondent - State for the purpose of considering and making appropriate revisions of the pay scales of the State Government servants. The Committee, after extensive consideration, submitted its report in May 1981. It recommended for revisions of pay scales of different services/cadres of State service. It considered the case of judicial services and medical services in Chapter XXXIII of its report and after taking notice of the fact that those recruited in the judicial service or medical service of the State were required to spend longer number of years in getting their respective qualifications recommended that Members of these services were entitled to be treated on preferential basis. It accordingly recommended that at the time of appointment, members of the judicial service as well as the members of the medical service of the State should be given three advance increments in order to make up for the time lost by them in acquiring their respective qualification. The Committee also considered the requirements of other service of the State Government, made various recommendations and recommended the initial scale of pay of Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 1,820/- for all the State services but for judicial and health service it recommended that recruits to these services be allowed three advance increments at the time of their appointments, thus, initial pay payable to each recruit in the judicial service and health service be Rs. 1,050/- as against Rs. 1000/- in the case of other State services. The State Government in its Finance Department, however, accepted the recommendations of Pay Revision Committee vide resolution dated 30.12.1981 with respect to health service but not with respect to judicial services. No reason, however, was given for such differentiation.

(3.) Eventually since members of other services complained of anomalies and judicial officers also complained of anomalies and denial to them of the scale of pay recommended by the 4th Pay Revision Committee, the State Government appointed a Pay Anomaly Removal Committee headed by Shri K. A. Ramasubramanian. Ramasubramanian's Committee at paragraph 3907.2 reiterated the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee and recommended for three advance increments for the members of the judicial services. Petitioners have alleged that inspite of such recommendations, as aforementioned, the respondent-State Government has not revised the scale of pay of the petitioners. They have made several representations but without any result.