Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014046-014046 – 2024 |
| Diary Number | 20738/2022 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Constitutional & Service Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The statutory deeming provision in Section 34(4) treats Patna High Court orders as if made by the Jharkhand High Court, rendering them binding on all successor-state proceedings. Pay-anomaly claims constitute a continuing cause of action—every underpaid salary cycle renews the right—so delay and laches do not bar relief. Coordinate-bench discipline requires following Patna HC’s identical-fact rulings unless overturned by a larger bench. Financial or policy considerations cannot override Article 14 equality. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A 1981 common‐exam recruitment for Industries Extension Officer led to pay disparities post‐4th/5th pay revisions. Patna HC (1993) equalized pay for sixteen identical posts. A 2000 fitment report recommended uniform scale. The appellant’s representations (2001/2002) were rejected in 2004; he filed WP in 2005; Single Judge granted relief (2011); Division Bench set aside (2022); Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order (2025). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and the State of Jharkhand in pay-anomaly matters |
| Persuasive For | Other State High Courts and government bodies dealing with post-reorganisation fallout |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act deems Patna HC orders as Jharkhand HC orders, making them binding, not merely persuasive.
- Confirms that pay-anomaly claims are continuing causes of action; delay or laches do not bar relief for underpayment.
- Reinforces that coordinate High Court benches must follow each other’s identical-fact rulings or refer conflicting points to a larger bench.
- Emphasizes that Article 14 equality in service conditions cannot be overridden by financial or administrative convenience.
- Lawyers can invoke this judgment to secure implementation of pre-reorganisation High Court decisions in successor states.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 34(4) Deeming Provision: The Act treats all Patna HC orders (pre-reorganisation or in transferred proceedings) as orders of the Jharkhand HC, ensuring continuity of judicial authority.
- Binding Precedent & Judicial Discipline: Patna HC’s anomaly-removal decision in Nagendra Sahani (1993) must be followed by Jharkhand benches unless challenged before a larger bench (per Mary Pushpam).
- Continuing Cause of Action: Each monthly salary underpaying creates a fresh cause of action (M.R. Gupta), so claims filed years later are not barred by limitation or laches.
- Doctrine of Equality (Article 14): Identical recruits cannot be placed on different pay scales without intelligible classification; discriminatory scales violate Article 14.
- Inadmissibility of Financial/Policy Objections: Administrative inconvenience or budgetary impact cannot justify perpetuating pay discrimination once anomaly is established.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Employee)
- Covered by Patna HC’s Nagendra Sahani and Alakh Kumar Sinha rulings; entitled to ₹1,600–2,780 pay scale from appointment.
- Fitment Appellate Committee (2000) uniformly recommended higher scale for all sixteen posts.
- Anomaly-removal claim is continuing; representations (2001/2002) timely; delay no bar.
Respondent (Employer)
- Appellant delayed over two decades seeking retrospective arrears, causing cascading financial impact.
- Patna HC decisions are persuasive, not binding on Jharkhand HC; different policy context.
- Rejection of representations in 2004 never challenged; attained finality.
- Single Judge overlooked State’s objections and administrative consequences.
Factual Background
In 1981 the Bihar Subordinate Services Selection Board held a common exam for Graduate-level Class-III posts, including Industries Extension Officer. After 4th and 5th Pay Commissions, ten posts received a higher scale (₹1,600–2,780) while six remained lower (₹1,500–2,750), prompting Patna HC to equalize all sixteen in 1993. A 2000 fitment report endorsed uniform scale (₹5,000–8,000). The appellant’s representations were rejected in 2004; he filed WP in 2005. The Single Judge granted parity relief in 2011; the Division Bench overturned it in 2022; the Supreme Court restored it in 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 34(1)–(3): Transfers jurisdiction and pending proceedings to Jharkhand HC, with limited exceptions.
- Section 34(4): Deems Patna HC orders (pre-appointed day or in transferred cases) as if made by Jharkhand HC, preserving their binding effect.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules were laid down; the Court reaffirmed existing principles on jurisdictional transfer and anomaly-removal litigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms binding effect of co-ordinate HC decisions under Section 34(4).
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves the Jharkhand Division Bench’s approach conflicting with Patna HC precedent.