This judgment from the Patna High Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 257 of 2022, delves into a significant issue concerning the pay scale and service conditions of employees who were initially part of a "work-charged establishment" and later absorbed into the "regular establishment" of the State Government. The appeal, heard by Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, and delivered on September 3, 2024, firmly upheld the principle of non-discrimination, ensuring that employees performing similar duties in the same cadre receive equal pay, regardless of their original source of appointment.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Pay Fixation After Retirement
The core of this legal battle stems from the re-fixation of the pay scale of Hirdayanand Tiwari (the Respondent/writ petitioner), an Electrician who had retired from service. The State of Bihar (the Appellant) was aggrieved by an earlier order of a learned Single Judge, which had declined to sustain this re-fixation of pay revision. The State's attempt to modify his pay scale after his retirement was the central point of contention.
Hirdayanand Tiwari was initially appointed as a Fuse-Man in the "work-charged establishment" on May 12, 1970. Over time, he was promoted to Assistant Armature Winder and then Armature Winder. He also received time-bound promotions in the Armature Winder post.
The Transition: From Work-Charged to Regular Establishment
A crucial development in Mr. Tiwari's service history was his absorption into the "regular establishment" of the State Government. This conversion of work-charged employees to regular establishment was a policy decision, evidenced by Annexure-A dated October 22, 1984, and their services were further regularized by Annexure-B dated October 23, 1987.
The State's argument was that when work-charged employees were brought into the regular establishment, their original pay scales from the work-charged establishment were to be preserved. According to the State, Mr. Tiwari was inadvertently fixed at a higher pay scale (Rs. 1200-1800, later revised to Rs. 4000-6000 under the 5th Pay Revision) than what he was allegedly entitled to (Rs. 950-1400, revised to Rs. 3050-4590) based on his work-charged origins. They contended that this was an "anomaly" that needed rectification. The State further argued that this re-fixation would only lead to a "notional" modification of his pay for the purpose of re-computing his pension, with no actual recovery of past payments.
The Petitioner's Stand: No Discrimination in Regular Cadre
Mr. Tiwari, through his counsel, strongly countered these arguments. He maintained that once he was absorbed into the regular establishment, he was entitled to the regular pay scale. He emphasized the principle that there cannot be two different pay scales for individuals performing similar duties with identical responsibilities within the same establishment. He also pointed out that the re-fixation was attempted after his retirement.
A History of Litigation and the Single Judge's Ruling
It's important to note that this was not the first time Mr. Tiwari's pay fixation was challenged. An earlier order dated May 7, 2010, had modified his pay fixation and even ordered recovery of excess payments. This previous order was challenged in CWJC No. 10325 of 2012. In that case, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which generally prohibits recovery of excess payments from retired employees, the learned Single Judge on March 8, 2019, set aside the recovery order. However, the Single Judge also directed a reconsideration of the re-fixation itself, citing a lack of clarity regarding the distinction between work-charged and regular establishments and how Mr. Tiwari, from the work-charged establishment, came to be fixed at the higher pay scale. The fresh consideration, leading to the impugned order in the current appeal, was thus made in 2019, after Mr. Tiwari's retirement.
The High Court's Detailed Analysis: Interpreting the Resolutions
The Division Bench of the High Court meticulously examined the various resolutions and documents presented by both sides to understand the intent behind the conversion of work-charged employees to the regular establishment.
-
Annexure-A (22.10.1984) and Annexure-B (23.10.1987): These resolutions dealt with the adjustment and regularization of work-charged employees. The State argued that Clause (c) in both these annexures, which stated that "the amount provided in the ordinary unit for expenditure on their salary allowances will be transferred to the concerned budget head of the regular establishment," implied that the work-charged employees would continue in their previous pay scales.
The High Court emphatically rejected this interpretation. It clarified that Clause (c) simply mandated the transfer of budgetary allocations from the work-charged establishment to the regular establishment, a "necessary consequence" of the Government's policy to discontinue the work-charged establishment. It did not dictate that the employees would retain their old pay scales. The Court highlighted that Clause (a) in both annexures explicitly stated that "On converting the Work-charged employees into regular establishment, the respective posts of the Work-Charged establishment will be converted into regular establishment." This indicated that they would occupy posts within the regular establishment.
-
Service Register as Evidence: The Court noted that the Service Register, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, clearly showed that Mr. Tiwari, upon conversion, was placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800, which was subsequently revised to Rs. 4000-6000. This documentary evidence directly contradicted the State's claim of an "inadvertent omission."
-
Principle of Non-Discrimination: The High Court strongly reiterated a fundamental legal principle: "when an employee is promoted to a new cadre or regularized in the services; there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of the source from which the promotion was conducted or the regularization was made, especially when, in the promoted post or the regular post the employee continues with the very same responsibilities, obligations and duties as a person who was promoted or appointed from another source." The Court found no reason to accept the State's argument that Mr. Tiwari was entitled only to the pay scale of the work-charged establishment, as this would lead to clear discrimination.
-
Annexure-C (17.10.2013): The State also relied on Annexure-C, a later resolution, to argue that excess posts from the work-charged establishment would cease to exist upon retirement, implying a different treatment for these employees. The Court dismissed this argument as well. It clarified that Annexure-C primarily dealt with the extension of the cut-off date for regularization for certain employees and the management of excess posts. It did not, in any way, suggest that work-charged employees, once converted and regularized, should be treated differently in terms of pay from other employees in the regular establishment performing identical duties. To do so, the Court observed, would "clearly mak[e] a case of discrimination."
The Final Verdict: Appeal Dismissed
In light of its comprehensive analysis, the Division Bench found "absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge." The Court concluded that the object of the various resolutions was not to treat work-charged establishment employees differently after their conversion and regularization into the regular establishment.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bihar was dismissed. This judgment serves as a vital precedent, reinforcing the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and ensuring that employees, once absorbed into a regular cadre, are treated on par with their counterparts, irrespective of their original employment status. It also underscores the judiciary's role in preventing discriminatory practices in public employment and upholding the rights of retired personnel.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMyNTcjMjAyMiMxI04=-xITI1tSdGQk=
0 Comments