Jharkhand Appellant Entitled to Pay Parity under Bihar Reorganisation Act | SC

Case Details: Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Jharkhand - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 542 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
• Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Arjun D. Singh, Roshan Kumar, Maitreya Mahaley, Yimyanger Longkumer, Kamei Bestman Kabui, Advs. & Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR for the Appellant.
• Shantanu Sagar, AOR & Anil Kumar, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, pursuant to a common recruitment process conducted in 1981, the appellant was appointed as an Industries Extension Officer (IEO) by the State of Bihar. Upon reorganisation of the State of Bihar, the appellant was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent-employer to grant him the genuine pay scale in place of the anomaly in pay scale, in parity with other similarly situated persons.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand allowed the writ petition, holding that the case was squarely covered by the judgments of the Patna High Court in Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar [CWJC No. 8419 of 1992], and directed the State to revise the appellant’s pay scale from the date of his appointment, with arrears and consequential benefits.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the intra-court appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 does not permit discrimination between persons who are similarly situated, and that any differential treatment must be based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It was further observed that Section 34(4) mandates that judicial orders of the Patna High Court continue to bind the successor State.

By virtue of Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the judgment of the Patna High Court in Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar [CWJC No. 8419 of 1992], granting a higher pay scale to similarly situated employees, is binding on the State of Jharkhand in the appellant’s case. Once it is established that the factual matrix is identical and the legal issue involved is the same, similar relief is required to be granted. Therefore, when other similarly situated employees have already been granted the benefit through judicial pronouncement, denial of the same relief to the appellant would be unjust.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench was liable to be set aside, restoring the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

List of Cases Reviewed

•  Order of High Court of Jharkhand, Division Bench LPA No. 269 of 2012, judgment dated 30.03.2022 (para 33) set aside
• Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar [CWJC No. 8419 of 1992] (para 31) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar [CWJC No. 8419 of 1992] (para 2)
• Alakh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar [CWJC No. 12301 of 2004] (para 2)
• Suprita Chandel v. Union of India [2025] 12 taxmann.com 1219 (SC) (para 11)
• Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary (2024) 3 SCC 224 (para 22)
• M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [1996] 1995 taxmann.com 1574 (SC) (para 24).