The Patna High Court has disposed of a batch of writ petitions filed by clerical staff working in different recognized schools in Katihar district. The petitioners sought payment of salary in the higher revised pay scale of ₹4,000–6,000 (with equivalent grade pay) instead of the lower scale of ₹3,050–4,500, from their respective dates of joining, along with consequential benefits and quashing of a contrary departmental memo. The Court granted relief “in terms of” an earlier Division Bench judgment (LPA No. 167 of 2016), while expressly making the benefit subject to the final outcome of a pending Civil Review before a Larger Bench. The petitioners must also furnish undertakings to refund amounts if the State ultimately succeeds in the review.

In this case, the petitioners argued that multiple Benches of the Patna High Court had already recognized entitlement of similarly placed employees to the higher pay scale, relying particularly on the Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 167 of 2016. They also pointed out that the State Government itself has been complying with that ruling—albeit conditionally—pending the result of Civil Review No. 236 of 2019 before a Larger Bench. This submission was supported by two government letters: GAD Letter No. 1620 dated 23.01.2023 and Finance Department Letter No. 3628 dated 21.04.2023.

The State’s counsel, however, highlighted a conflict between two Division Bench decisions: LPA No. 167 of 2016 (favouring employees) and LPA No. 100 of 2012 (favouring the State). Owing to that conflict, a Single Bench has referred the broader issue to a Larger Bench, where the Civil Review filed by the State and both LPAs are pending consideration.

Despite this backdrop, the Court took note of several important developments: (i) repeated orders from various Benches granting similar relief, (ii) continuing conditional compliance by State authorities with LPA No. 167 of 2016, and (iii) even a recent District Magistrate order (Kaimur-Bhabhua, 08.11.2023) extending the higher scale to similarly situated staff, all subject to the final decision in the Civil Review.

Crucially, the Court invoked Clause 4.C(1) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, which encourages departments to resolve “similar cases” administratively if covered by existing court decisions, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation. Relying on this policy and the consistent pattern of conditional compliance, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by extending to the petitioners the same relief as in LPA No. 167 of 2016—again, expressly subject to the Larger Bench’s decision in Civil Review No. 236 of 2019. The Court further required the petitioners to file undertakings to refund the amounts if the State succeeds in review.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This order is a practical, interim harmonization of competing interests while a Larger Bench settles the law. For employees in similar positions across Bihar:

• It signals that, where a consistent Division Bench view has been followed and departments are already conditionally complying, individual writ petitions may be disposed of by granting similar relief, subject to the review’s result.
• It reduces immediate hardship by allowing payment in the higher scale now, while protecting the State with refund undertakings if the legal position later changes.

For government departments:

• The Court’s reliance on the Bihar State Litigation Policy underscores an expectation that departments should proactively resolve “similar cases” rather than force repetitive litigation. This promotes administrative efficiency and reduces docket burden.
• The conditional nature of relief preserves fiscal prudence: payments can be made now to align with prevailing court orders, but the State may seek reimbursement if the Larger Bench rules otherwise.

For the public:

• The order reflects judicial sensitivity to uniformity and fairness where multiple benches have granted like relief in similar factual settings.
• It improves predictability for similarly situated employees and reduces the need to litigate identical issues repeatedly.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether clerical staff in recognized schools are entitled to pay in the revised scale of ₹4,000–6,000 with equivalent grade pay, instead of ₹3,050–4,500, from their dates of joining, along with consequential benefits.
  Decision: Yes—relief is granted “in terms of” Division Bench ruling in LPA No. 167 of 2016, subject to the result of Civil Review No. 236 of 2019 pending before the Larger Bench. The benefit will be released on the petitioners’ undertaking to refund if the State ultimately prevails.
• How to proceed when two Division Bench decisions conflict (one favouring employees and another favouring the State), and the matter is sub judice before a Larger Bench.
  Decision: Pending authoritative resolution, the Single Judge adopts a consistent, pragmatic approach: follow the Division Bench decision (LPA 167/2016) which departments are already conditionally implementing, guided by the State Litigation Policy’s “similar cases” clause, and safeguard the State through conditional undertakings.
• Whether the Court should defer all writs until the Civil Review is decided.
  Decision: No. The Court chooses disposal with conditional relief rather than indefinite adjournment, referencing multiple similar orders and ongoing administrative compliance.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• LPA No. 167 of 2016 (Division Bench, Patna High Court) — relied upon by petitioners as the governing precedent for the higher pay scale; a civil review against this decision is pending.
• LPA No. 100 of 2012 (Division Bench, Patna High Court) — cited by the State to show conflicting authority.
• C.W.J.C. No. 17151 of 2018 (order dated 03.10.2018) — referenced in the prayer as a basis for relief.
• C.W.J.C. No. 188 of 2021 (order dated 09.07.2021) — petitioners cited similar relief granted to similarly placed persons.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• LPA No. 167 of 2016 — forms the basis on which the Court grants relief “in terms of” the Division Bench ruling, subject to review.
• Reference to Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, Clause 4.C(1) — guiding the approach to “similar cases” for administrative settlement without compelling litigation.

Case Title
Kaushal Kishor Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
C.W.J.C. No. 3819 of 2024

Citation(s)
2025 (1) PLJR 588

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan (Oral Judgment dated 15.05.2024)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh
• For the State (respondents): Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC 26; assisted by Mr. Divit Vinod, AC to SC 26

Link to Judgment
MTUjMzgxOSMyMDI0IzEjTg==-FtRkpmfQ5f0=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.