Introduction:
The Jharkhand High Court, in Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Others (W.P.(S) No. 4235 of 2021), reaffirmed the principles of judicial discipline, equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, and fairness in administrative decision-making. Justice Deepak Roshan held that it was wholly impermissible for a government officer to claim in a counter affidavit that benefits granted to an employee pursuant to an earlier High Court judgment had been “wrongly granted.” The Court described such a statement as “highly contemptuous,” observing that once the earlier judgment had attained finality and had been implemented by the authorities, its correctness could not be questioned in subsequent proceedings.
The petitioner, Shailesh Kumar Singh, was appointed as a clerk in 1978 and completed thirty years of qualifying service in 2008. Initially, he was granted the first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits in lower pay scales. However, pursuant to an earlier judgment of the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 2170 of 2015, those benefits were revised, and he became entitled to the higher pay scales of ₹5000–8000 and ₹5500–9000. Despite this, when the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was implemented, the authorities granted him Grade Pay of ₹4600 instead of ₹4800. His request for correction was rejected, compelling him to approach the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that once the earlier High Court judgment had directed the grant of revised first and second ACP benefits, and the State had implemented those directions, the authorities were legally bound to extend all consequential benefits arising from that decision. Since he had entered the ₹5500–9000 pay scale through the revised second ACP, he was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4800 under the 3rd MACP Scheme.
The petitioner further submitted that similarly situated clerks serving in the erstwhile South Chotanagpur Division had already been granted the benefit of Grade Pay of ₹4800. Merely because he was serving in the newly constituted Kolhan Division could not justify denial of the same benefit. Such differential treatment, according to the petitioner, amounted to hostile discrimination and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The State opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner had been wrongly granted the revised ACP benefits under the earlier scheme. It was argued in the supplementary counter affidavit that the higher pay scales earlier granted to the petitioner were themselves erroneous and therefore could not be relied upon for claiming a higher Grade Pay under the MACP Scheme.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim. Justice Deepak Roshan held that once the earlier High Court judgment had been implemented by the authorities, the respondents were bound by it. The State could not subsequently contend that the benefits granted under that judgment were erroneous. The Court strongly criticised the Regional Deputy Director of Education for making such an assertion in the supplementary counter affidavit and observed that questioning an implemented judicial order in this manner was “highly contemptuous.”
The Court further held that the rejection order passed by the authorities was cryptic, non-speaking, and devoid of reasons. Although the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation, the authorities failed to deal with his specific contentions. The Court reiterated the settled principle that administrative orders must contain reasons and that deficiencies in an order cannot later be cured through explanations offered in a counter affidavit before the Court.
Justice Roshan also accepted the petitioner’s plea of discrimination. The Court noted that similarly situated employees in the South Chotanagpur Division had already been granted Grade Pay of ₹4800. Denying the same benefit to the petitioner solely because he belonged to the Kolhan Division lacked any reasonable basis and amounted to arbitrary discrimination prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Holding that the respondents had acted arbitrarily and contrary to constitutional principles, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the State authorities to grant the petitioner the benefit of the 3rd MACP in Pay Band-II (₹9300–34800) with Grade Pay of ₹4800 with effect from 1 September 2008. The Court further directed that all consequential monetary and service benefits be extended to the petitioner in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces three important legal principles: government authorities cannot disregard or undermine binding judicial orders through subsequent affidavits, similarly situated employees must receive equal treatment under Article 14, and administrative decisions affecting civil rights must be supported by clear and reasoned orders.