Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case involved a group of retired employees from the Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. (BSPHCL) who had worked as Accountants but were directed to take charge of higher posts such as Accounts Officer (Look After) and, in one case, even Deputy Director of Accounts. They approached the Patna High Court after the company denied them the benefit of 20% officiating allowance, which is payable when an employee is asked to discharge duties of a higher post.
The petitioners argued that they performed duties of higher responsibility for several years and were therefore entitled to the allowance. They also pointed out that other similarly situated employees, such as Ganesh Lal and later Ganauri Paswan, were granted the allowance following orders of the Patna High Court, which were upheld by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court.
The company’s stand was that:
- The petitioners never raised any claim for officiating allowance during their service period or immediately after retirement.
- Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code, read with its clarifications, does not support payment of such allowance when the higher post falls in the same establishment or normal line of promotion.
- The cases of Ganesh Lal and Ganauri Paswan were exceptions and could not be treated as precedents for others.
The High Court examined the records and noted a clear inconsistency in the company’s approach. On one hand, it opposed the petitioners’ claims, but on the other, it had already extended the same benefit to Ganauri Paswan in 2020. The Court observed that such selective treatment amounted to discrimination.
The Court held that since BSPHCL had already recognized the entitlement of other employees under identical circumstances, it was bound to consider the petitioners’ claims as well. It directed the competent authority to pass a reasoned and independent order within eight weeks, treating the writ petition as the petitioners’ representation. Importantly, the Court clarified that it was not deciding the merits of entitlement but ensuring fair and equal consideration.
In simple terms, the High Court said: If you (the company) have already paid officiating allowance to some employees for the same kind of service, you cannot deny the same benefit to others who worked under identical circumstances. Equality and consistency must be maintained.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for both employees and government companies in Bihar:
- For employees: It reinforces the principle of equal treatment. Retired employees performing duties of higher responsibility cannot be deprived of benefits that were already extended to their colleagues.
- For public sector employers: It is a reminder that selective compliance with court orders creates discrimination and further litigation. Uniformity and consistency in administrative decisions are essential.
- For future disputes: The case highlights the importance of recording timely claims during service but also recognizes that once benefits are extended to similarly situated employees, authorities cannot arbitrarily deny the same to others.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether petitioners were entitled to the same officiating allowance as other similarly placed employees?
• Decision: The Court did not grant the allowance directly but held that since BSPHCL had extended the benefit to others (like Ganesh Lal and Ganauri Paswan), the petitioners’ cases must also be considered fairly within eight weeks. - Whether past delay in raising the claim bars relief?
• Decision: The Court did not accept delay as a bar because once the company itself recognized similar claims, it could not discriminate against the petitioners.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Ganesh Lal v. Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., 2016(2) PLJR 370 (entitled to 20% officiating allowance; affirmed in LPA and SLP).
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Ganesh Lal v. Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., 2016(2) PLJR 370.
- CWJC No. 16750/2019 (Ganauri Paswan v. BSPHCL), decided on 02.09.2019, where similar relief was granted.
Case Title
Rajendra Mahto & Ors. v. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20478 of 2018
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 44
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad (Oral Judgment dated 25-02-2021)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate
Link to Judgment
MTUjMjA0NzgjMjAxOCMxI04=-PSNwRAGmF8s=
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.
