Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 951 of 2016) decided on 28 November 2022, dealt with a long-standing grievance of several government employees in Bihar regarding pay disparity between directly recruited Personal Assistants and Steno-Typists who were later upgraded to the post of Personal Assistant.
The appeal arose from the judgment of a Single Judge dated 18 February 2016, which had rejected similar claims made by the appellants. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh, upheld the earlier order and dismissed the appeal.
Background and Facts of the Case
The appellants were all Personal Assistants in various government departments of Bihar. They had been directly recruited between 1978 and 1986.
However, another category of employees—those originally appointed as Steno-Typists—had been upgraded to the cadre of Personal Assistants in 1987 after passing a departmental examination.
This created three distinct groups within the same cadre:
- Stenographers Grade I & II who merged into the cadre after passing a test in 1977;
- Direct recruits to the post of Personal Assistant (the appellants); and
- Steno-Typists upgraded to Personal Assistants on 07.08.1987.
The dispute arose when it was found that the upgraded Steno-Typists (third category) were drawing higher pay than the direct recruits (appellants) due to their eligibility for the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme.
The appellants argued that such disparity among employees holding the same post was unfair and demanded a “stepping-up of pay”—meaning their salaries should be revised upward to match those of their juniors.
Arguments by the Appellants
The appellants contended that all Personal Assistants, irrespective of the mode of entry, perform the same duties and hold the same responsibilities. Therefore, the difference in pay between the upgraded Steno-Typists and direct recruits was arbitrary and discriminatory.
They relied on two judicial precedents:
- Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Swarup Ganda (2006), where the Supreme Court allowed stepping-up of pay to remove anomalies between seniors and juniors holding identical posts.
- Tejbir Singh Dagar v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2014), which reaffirmed that senior employees should not draw less pay than their juniors merely due to differences in recruitment routes.
Arguments by the State
The State argued that the ACP benefits were introduced to address stagnation—granting financial upgradation to employees who did not get promotions after long service. The Steno-Typists who were upgraded in 1987 had longer service histories, and their upgradation was treated as part of a promotional benefit under the ACP scheme.
In contrast, the direct recruits joined directly as Personal Assistants and had already entered at a higher pay scale. Therefore, they were not entitled to parity with those whose service history included upgradation from a lower post.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Court began by clarifying the purpose of the ACP/MACP scheme:
“It is not meant to provide promotion, but to reduce frustration due to stagnation by granting a higher grade scale after completion of a fixed number of years.”
The Court observed that the appellants’ claim of “pay anomaly” was misplaced because it compared employees from different sources of recruitment with different service backgrounds.
- The appellants were direct recruits to the post of Personal Assistant.
- The others were Steno-Typists upgraded to the same post after qualifying certain exams and serving longer in lower cadres.
Thus, both groups did not stand on the same footing. The principle of stepping-up of pay could not be invoked unless all service conditions, qualifications, and modes of entry were identical.
The Bench cited a Government of India circular, explaining that stepping-up is only permissible where:
- The senior and junior belong to the same cadre;
- Their service particulars are identical (same date of entry, increments, and qualifications); and
- The anomaly arises purely due to revision of pay or promotion.
Since the pay difference here arose from different career progressions (direct recruitment vs. upgradation), the Court held that there was no anomaly in law.
The Division Bench further reasoned:
“When the sources of recruitment and service particulars are entirely different, pay comparison is not justified. Pay anomaly can only be rectified among employees on identical footing.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court concluded that:
- The appellants failed to establish any legal or factual ground to justify stepping-up of pay.
- The benefit of ACP was rightfully extended to those who faced stagnation in their previous posts.
- Direct recruits, having joined at a higher grade, could not claim the same benefit retroactively.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 4501 of 2014 was affirmed.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for all government departments in Bihar and elsewhere because it draws a clear line between “equal work” and “equal pay entitlement.”
- For Employees: It clarifies that salary parity cannot be claimed merely because two employees hold the same post; their mode of recruitment and career path matter.
- For Administration: It reaffirms that ACP/MACP benefits are meant to relieve stagnation, not to equalize pay among unequals.
- For HR and Finance Departments: It prevents large-scale financial liabilities that could arise if stepping-up were granted across different recruitment streams.
In essence, the Patna High Court upheld the principle of classification within equality, affirming that differences based on legitimate criteria such as recruitment source and service length are constitutionally valid.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and Court’s Decision
- Whether directly recruited Personal Assistants can claim stepping-up of pay on par with Steno-Typists upgraded to the same post?
• Decision: No. The two groups belong to different sources of recruitment; their service particulars are not identical, so the stepping-up principle does not apply. - Whether ACP benefits can be extended uniformly to all employees in a cadre?
• Decision: No. ACP/MACP benefits are specific to individuals facing stagnation; direct recruits who entered at a higher scale cannot claim them retrospectively.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana v. Ram Swarup Ganda & Ors., (2006)
- Tejbir Singh Dagar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (Delhi High Court, 2014)
Case Title
Akhileshwar Prasad & Others v. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 951 of 2016
(Arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 4501 of 2014)
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 136
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Appellants: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
Link to Judgment
MyM5NTEjMjAxNiMxI04=-7sSKLWGseF0=
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.
