Case Background
This case was filed by a group of contractual Amins working under the Directorate of Land Records and Survey, Government of Bihar.
They had been appointed through a selection process and were working in various districts, performing the duties of Amins. Regular Amins, who hold permanent posts, receive a regular pay scale and various service benefits.
The petitioners claimed that although they were doing the same work as regular Amins, they were being paid less because they were on contract. They approached the Patna High Court through a civil writ petition, seeking directions to regularise their pay and to extend several other benefits.
The writ petition came up before the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 07.04.2022. Both sides were heard, and the Court confined itself to the central question of minimum pay for the contractual Amins.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioners asked for multiple reliefs against the State of Bihar and senior officials of various departments including the General Administration Department, Finance Department, and the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms.
Their main demand was for an order directing the authorities to grant them at least the minimum of the pay scale that is given to permanent Amins working under the Directorate of Land Records and Survey. They based this on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
They also referred to a Government of Bihar Resolution dated 17.09.2018. According to them, under this resolution the State had accepted a High Level Committee’s recommendation that contractual appointees could work up to the age of retirement without repeated extensions of their contracts. They argued that such benefits were already being extended to Amins working at the district and circle level offices, and to contractual Amins under the Chakbandi Directorate.
On that basis, they further sought extension of related benefits such as Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) deductions and travel allowance. Finally, they sought arrears of the difference in salary calculated on the basis of the minimum pay scale available to permanent Amins, from the date of their appointment till the date of actual payment.
The Court identified the “short question” in this case: whether the petitioners, as contractual Amins, were entitled to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amins or not.
This meant the Court focused primarily on the pay parity issue, rather than separately analysing all the other service conditions and benefits mentioned in the petition.
To support their claim, the petitioners’ counsel relied on a key judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
In that case, the Supreme Court discussed the rights of workers appointed on an ad hoc, daily wage, or contractual basis, who were doing the same work as regular employees. The Supreme Court held that such workers, when they perform identical work as regular employees, are entitled to receive at least the minimum of the regular pay scale attached to those posts. This is based on the constitutional principle of equality and the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”.
The Patna High Court accepted the legal principle laid down in that Supreme Court judgment. The Court stated that if a person is appointed on an ad hoc basis, he is entitled to the minimum pay attached to the post. Applying that principle, the Court treated the contractual Amins in this case similarly.
The Court concluded that the petitioners are entitled to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amin.
As a result, the Court issued a clear direction to the concerned authorities. It directed them to extend the minimum pay attached to the post of Amins to the petitioners, for as long as their services continue in the concerned department, or till their regularisation, whichever is applicable.
The Court also addressed the question of implementation. It directed that the entire exercise of granting the minimum pay and related monetary benefits, with reference to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amins, must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
While the petition had also sought benefits like EPF deduction, travel allowance, extension of service up to retirement age without special orders, and arrears for the past period, the Court’s order specifically speaks of “all monetary benefits with reference to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amins”.
The judgment does not separately discuss or rule on each of the other prayers beyond this broad direction. The focus remains firmly on pay parity based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagjit Singh’s case.
After issuing these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition. This means the case was concluded at this stage, with no further directions recorded in the judgment text.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for contractual Amins working under the Directorate of Land Records and Survey in Bihar, and potentially for similar contractual staff in other departments.
It reinforces the principle that when contractual employees are doing the same work as regular employees on a particular post, they cannot be paid substantially less than the minimum of the regular pay scale for that post.
For workers, especially those from rural areas working as Amins on contract, this decision provides a legal basis to claim at least the minimum pay that a regular Amin receives, as long as they are performing comparable duties.
For the government and departments, this judgment serves as a reminder that contractual appointment cannot be used to deny basic pay parity where work and qualifications are the same. Authorities are required to act within a time-bound period once such directions are issued.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Are contractual Amins, appointed through a valid selection process and performing identical functions as permanent Amins, entitled to the minimum pay attached to the post of Amin?
Answer: Yes. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, the Patna High Court held that such contractual appointees are entitled to the minimum pay attached to the post and directed the authorities to grant it along with monetary benefits within two months.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2690 of 2021
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 462
Advocates: For the petitioners: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC 19.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (Civil) seeking mandamus regarding pay scale and service benefits of contractual Amins.
Link to Judgment: View original judgment of Patna High Court
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.
