"Discriminatory": Patna HC Sets Aside State's Move Fixing One Increment Per Year For Judicial Officers While Allowing Two Increments For Other Govt Employees

The Patna High Court on Wednesday (July 24) set aside a notification by the Bihar Government which allegedly discriminated amongst State Government employees and Judicial Officers concerning the date of grant of increment after promotion/appointment/financial degradation. By way of the notification, the government had stated that judicial officers in Bihar would be entitled to receive increments of salary only once in a year.The Court, however, said that Judicial Officers of the State would be entitled to receive the increment on two dates in a year instead of one, like other government employees in the state.The petitioner Ajit Kumar Singh, currently serving as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, approached the High Court in his personal capacity and as the Secretary of the Bihar Judicial Services Association; ventilating the cause of the Judicial Officers in the State of Bihar. The issue raised is with respect to the second National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC) and the grant of increments, which was done as per the resolution of the Government of Bihar applicable to all government employees, including the Judicial Officers. The specific issue dealt with in the writ petition is the applicability of the date of increment as available to the government employees. The same was modified, exclusively for the Judicial Officers, which resulted in the earlier fixation of the date of increment being revised and a refund being ordered from them. The resolution as made applicable to the government employees and Judicial Officer provides for the grant of increment on two dates i.e., 1st of January or 1st of July depending on the date of promotion/appointment/financial upgradation. The petitioner's case was that by subsequent notification, the State Government had limited the date of increment for the judicial officers to one date instead of two dates as made applicable to both state government employees and judicial officers. According to the petitioner, the judicial officers were asked to refund the amount of increment they received during the earlier date fixed for increment stating that the Judicial officers were entitled to increment only on one date instead of two dates. Finding force in the petitioner's contentions, the bench comprising Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy observed that since the resolution was made applicable to both government employees and judicial officers in the state, the State Government cannot disentitle the Judicial Officers to receive increments on two dates as received by the state government employees. “When a benefit has been granted to all the government employees by the State Government, there is no reason for the State to modify it with respect to the Judicial Officers; discriminating them from the other government employees and also prejudicing their entitlement to increment, as is provided to all other government employees.”, the judgment authored by Chief Justice said. The Court rejected the State Government's argument that the judicial officer's increment was fixed once a year as per the recommendations of the National Judicial Pay Commission (NJPC). “Merely for a recommendation made in the second NJPC that the increments normally would be once in a year as per the date of appointment or promotion or financial upgradation cannot result in the benefit conferred by the State to all the government employees, being denied to Judicial Officers.”, the court said. Accordingly, the court struck down the modification made by the State Government and held that the judicial officers would be entitled to receive the increments on two dates instead of one date. Also, the court directed the State Government to refund the recovery made from the judicial officers.“We hence set aside Annexure-P3 to the extent it modified the grant of increment. The Judicial Officers will also be entitled to the date of increment as applicable to the other government employees as per Annexure-P2. The recovery made shall be immediately refunded to the Judicial Officers and increments shall be continued in so far as the Judicial Officers are concerned as per the procedure in vogue in the State of Bihar as evidenced by Annexure-P2.”Counsels For the Petitioner/s: Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Mr. Animesh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate Mr. Amritya Raj, Advocate Counsels For the Respondent/s: Smt. Anuradha Singh, Standing Counsel 21 Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, AC to SC-21 Mr. Shatabdi Sinha, AC to SC-21Case Title: Ajit Kumar Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.960 of 2024LL Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 61Click here to read/download the judgment

"Discriminatory": Patna HC Sets Aside State's Move Fixing One Increment Per Year For Judicial Officers While Allowing Two Increments For Other Govt Employees

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

"Discriminatory": Patna HC Sets Aside State's Move Fixing One Increment Per Year For Judicial Officers While Allowing Two Increments For Other Govt Employees

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers