Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Ranjana Sinha and anr.

The State of Bihar and ors. vs Ranjana Sinha and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Patna Decided Apr 18, 2006
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/120056

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
L.P.A. No. 125 of 2006
Subject
;Service
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Law—Pay Scale—Petitioners working as Lecturers in State Institute of Education Technology, under financial, administrative and pervasive control of Govt of India, claiming pay scale being given to Central govt. officers and employees—Fitment Committee's report in favour of petitioners claim...

Key legal issue
;Service
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Societies Registration Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

Ranjana Sinha and anr.

Advocate Ravi Shankar Ganguli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Societies Registration Act

Court's Analysis

Prior History

1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing this Letters Patent Appeal within time. The application for condonation of delay shall, therefore, stand allowed and the delay of 174 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand condoned.
2. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
3. In so far as

Excerpt

service law-pay scale-petitioners working as lecturers in state institute of education technology, under financial, administrative and pervasive control of govt of india, claiming pay scale being given to central govt. officers and employees-fitment committee's report in favour of petitioners claim-pursuant to revision in pay scale, original petitioners ought to have been paid the equivalent new scale as being paid to central govt. employees-original petitioners held entitled to replacement scale-no interference required in order of writ court. - - 1. after having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing this letters patent appeal within time. 12268 of 2001, whereby, the prayer of the original petitioners, respondents herein, came to be granted to the extent that their claim for equivalent scale in view of the fitment committee report, as well as, the new scale paid to the central government employees is justified.1. after having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing this letters patent appeal within time. the application for condonation of delay shall, therefore, stand allowed and the delay of 174 days in filing the letters patent appeal shall stand condoned.2. rule is made absolute. no costs.3. in so far as the merits of the letters patent appeal is concerned, it is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 26.7.2005 in c.w.j.c. no. 12268 of 2001, whereby, the prayer of the original petitioners, respondents herein, came to be granted to the extent that their claim for equivalent scale in view of the fitment committee report, as well as, the new scale paid to the central government employees is justified.4. the respondents herein are the original petitioners who claimed the scale of rs. 8000-13500/- claiming it to be an appropriate replacement or equivalent to the scale given to the central government officers and employees. the petitioners were working as lecturers and they were in the pay scale of rs. 2200-4050/- in the state institute of education technology which is a registered society under the societies registration act fully financed by the ministry of human resources, government of india. the government of india has financial, administrative and pervasive control in so far as the said society is concerned.5. it is in this context when there was a revision in the scale and new scales were given to the central government employees and officers of the registered societies managed by the government of india, the original petitioners ought to have been paid the equivalent new scale as is being paid to the central government employees.6. apart from that, there was a fitment committee which, also, reported that hitherto the scale of rs. 2200-4050/- would be.....

Full Judgment

1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing this Letters Patent Appeal within time. The application for condonation of delay shall, therefore, stand allowed and the delay of 174 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal shall stand condoned.

2. Rule is made absolute. No costs.

3. In so far as the merits of the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned, it is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2005 in C.W.J.C. No. 12268 of 2001, whereby, the prayer of the original petitioners, respondents herein, came to be granted to the extent that their claim for equivalent scale in view of the Fitment Committee Report, as well as, the new scale paid to the Central Government employees is justified.

4. The respondents herein are the original petitioners who claimed the scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- claiming it to be an appropriate replacement or equivalent to the scale given to the Central Government Officers and employees. The petitioners were working as lecturers and they were in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4050/- in the State Institute of Education Technology which is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act fully financed by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India. The Government of India has financial, administrative and pervasive control in so far as the said Society is concerned.

5. It is in this context when there was a revision in the scale and new scales were given to the Central Government employees and Officers of the registered Societies managed by the Government of India, the original petitioners ought to have been paid the equivalent new scale as is being paid to the Central Government employees.

6. Apart from that, there was a Fitment Committee which, also, Reported that hitherto the scale of Rs. 2200-4050/- would be equivalent to scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. Therefore, obviously, the original petitioners- respondents, lecturers in the State Institute of Education Technology would be entitled to the replacement scale as demanded even in pursuance of the report of the Fitment Committee which is not questioned before us. We are, therefore, also, of the opinion that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge and the grounds manifested in support of this conclusion are quite justified requiring no interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Obviously, therefore, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal at the threshold.

7. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial