JYOTI KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five petitioners of first case, which includes the sole petitioner of the second case also, are working in the cadre of reporters in the Bihar Legislative Assembly Secretariat (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Assembly'). They have moved this Court challenging the Resolution of the Cabinet Sub -Committee for Economic Affairs (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cabinet Sub -Committee') in respect of the employees of the Houses of State Legislature, notified under memo no. 3989 dated 04.07.2001 of the Finance Department, as contained in Annexure -6, by which the pay -scale of the reporters is said to have been reduced. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant Central pay -scale of Rs. 10,000 -15,200 to the reporters; Rs. 12,000 -16500 to the senior reporters and thereafter promotional pay -scales in terms of the 6th pay revision with effect from 1.1.1996. Through I.A. No. 6347 of 2008 they have also prayed for quashing of the notifications dated 27.08.2003 and 17.07.2006 (Annexure -8 and 8/A respectively) of the Assembly Secretariat notifying revision of their pay -scale in a lower scale. Through another I.A., No. 792 of 2014, they have also prayed for quashing of the order of the Speaker dated 08.08.2013 on the file, as contained in Annexure -19, accepting the proposal for rejecting the recommendations of the Finance Department, as contained in Annexure -15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to sanction the pay -scale of Rs. 8000 -13500 for the reporters, considering the post as technical post not available in the Civil Secretariat of the Government. He has also prayed for a direction for grant of pay -scale to the senior reporters and chief reporter as recommended by the Finance Department through its letter no. 8711 dated 19.09.2011, contained in Annexure -15 with I.A. No. 5321 of 2012 and implemented in Legislative Council.

(2.) THE sole ground of the petitioners for seeking relief in these writ applications is that in terms of the pay revision the reporters of the Parliament are getting higher pay -scale for identical duties and pay -scale of the reporters of the Bihar Legislative Council (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Council') has also been revised. However, this pay -revision has not been allowed to the reporters of the Assembly and in fact their pay -scale has been reduced to lower level in revision without any rationale, and arbitrarily the same has been denied to them violating their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN terms of the provisions of the said Article 187, the Governor, in consultation with the Speaker of the Assembly framed Bihar Vidhan Sabha (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as '1964 Rules'), laying down elaborate provisions in respect of recruitment and service conditions of officers and staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly. The number of permanent posts with designations in the Assembly were specified in the first schedule of the Rules and the pay -scales of the posts were specified in the 2nd schedule. Under sub -rule (2) of Rule 3, Speaker was empowered to amend the first schedule by increasing or reducing the number of posts or by adding thereto any new category of posts in consultation with the Finance Department. Rule 4 provided the method of recruitment and Rule 8 provided for pay attached to each post in the Assembly as set out in the 2nd schedule. Rule 8 contained a proviso also to the effect that, if pay of a post in the Civil Secretariat, corresponding to a post of any category of the posts mentioned in the 2nd schedule, was revised by the Government, such revision was to be deemed to apply to the post of corresponding category in the Assembly also. Rule 9 provided other conditions of service in respect of officers for whom there was no specific provisions in the Rules. It was made clear that such officers shall be governed by such rule, orders or directions as applicable to the officers of the corresponding rank in the Civil Secretariat of the Government, subject to such modification, variation and exception, if any, in such rule, as the Speaker may make after consultation with the Finance Department by specific order. Rule 10 vested with the Speaker power to relax any rule or provision, in consultation with the Finance Department, in respect of an officer, in just and equitable manner if it caused undue hardship in that particular case. Rule 20 contained residuary powers of the Speaker, subject to Rule 9, and laid down that all matters not specifically provided for in the Rules, whether incidentally or ancillary or otherwise, were to be regulated in accordance with such orders, as Speaker, from time to time, may make. Thus, it is clear that though the 1964 Rules did contain detailed provisions in connection with recruitment, service conditions and disciplinary control of the staff and officers of the Assembly, but the Speaker was vested with overriding powers to issue such orders or directions or specify such modification, variation or exception in provisions of the Rules or in the matters not covered by it, or relax a particular rule in consultation with the Finance Department, as he may consider necessary.