SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the State to pay him salary on the same scale as in case of his colleagues, namely, Subhash Chandra Jha and Ranjan Sinha. State has filed a counter-affidavit and there is a rejoinder thereto. When this case was earlier taken up, this Court was satisfied of prima facie a hostile discrimination and adjourned the matter to enable the State itself to rectify the position. Virtually, the stand of the State in the counter-affidavit was that the colleagues of the petitioner had come to this Court and got an order from this Court. Petitioner had not got any such order from this Court and, as such, he could be dealt differently. This Court pointed out that in terms of paragraph 4.C of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, this could not be done apart from the merit as well. Today, when the matter was again taken up, learned State Counsel prays, at the instance of the Director (Administration)-cum-Deputy Secretary of Education Department, further one month's time. When questioned as to for what purpose, learned State Counsel fairly stated that no purpose has been indicated.

(2.) In my view, the writ petition has been unnecessarily pending since the year, 2007. It is after much persuasion, after five years, an exhaustive counter-affidavit has been filed on 30.08.2012. After rejoinder was filed now, again and again time is being sought for by the State. In my view, it is wholly unfair on the part of the State to take the matters so lightly and seek adjournment without any reason. I, therefore, have heard the parties at length and disposing of the matter on the merits of the case.

(3.) Petitioner and Ranjan Sinha, apart from others, were duly selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee for selection of Producer at the State Institute of Educational Technology (SIET). The said Institute is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act and is fully financed by Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India but was managed by the State of Bihar. The Secretary of the Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department of the State of Bihar is the ex-officio Chairman of the said Society. Most of the other members are Government officials either of the State Government or of the Central Government. It appears that the petitioner and his like were appointed on central pay-scales. There being revision in the central pay-scales, which revision was not being passed on to the petitioner and his like including Ranjan Sinha who was also a Producer and, as noted above, recruited on the same day, Ranjan Sinha and Subhash Chandra Jha approached this Court in CWJC No. 12268 of 2001. After hearing the matter, this Court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 26.07.2005 (Annexure 1). This Court clearly noticed that those writ petitioners were entitled to replacement scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500/- in pursuance to the recommendations of the 05th Pay Revision Committee with regard to the Central Government, as approved by the Fitment Committee. The stand of the State was that SIET was an autonomous body and the Executive Committee of the Society had decided to grant revised scale of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500/- to the petitioner. This Court in those writ proceedings, disapproved the decision of the Governing Body and held that there was no justification to deprive those petitioners of the replacement pay-scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500/-. It appears that State, being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, preferred an intra Court appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 2006 which, after hearing the parties, was dismissed by judgment and order dated 18.04.2006 (Annexure 2). The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned single Judge. It appears that as is prevalent in the State, orders were not being implemented. This led to contempt applications being filed by petitioner's colleagues who had earlier approached the Court. In the meantime, State took a decision to absorb the employees of SIET in regular Government Departments. Petitioner was sent to Rashtrabhasha Parishad. Rajnan Sinha was appointed as Sales Officer in Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. Petitioner was absorbed as Librarian, Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. It appears as the judgment of this Court in favour of Ranjan Sinha and Subhash Chandra Jha was not being implemented, this led to filing of contempt applications. Ultimately, State issued notification on 10th April, 2007 (Annexure 6) in the Department of Human Resources Development whereby the pay-scale of Ranjan Sinha and Subhash Chandra Jha was fixed at Rs. 8,000 - 13,500/-. It may be noted that so far as petitioner is concerned, at that time, he was still in SIET and had not been given the benefit of the judgment and he had already filed this writ petition for similar treatment. It is subsequently on or about 30th January, 2008 that the petitioner was absorbed and adjusted as Librarian in the Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad but on a lower pay-scale of Rs. 6,500 - 10,500/-. It is not disputed that both the petitioner and Ranjan Sinha or for that matter, Subhash Chandra Jha are of the same seniority and have been absorbed in the same level in Bihar Rashtrabhasha Parishad. The grievance of the petitioner is that he cannot be discriminated in any manner.