Tej Narayan Lal Karna vs The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner,
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6168 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010842472016
======================================================
Tej Narayan Lal Karna Son of Late Sanjap Lal Karn, Resident of Village-
Chatara, Police Station- Arer, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner, New
Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat. Patna.
3. The Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur, through its
Registrar having office
4. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur.
5. The Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa,
Samastipur.
6. The Comptroller Rajendra Agricultural Unniversity, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur.
7. The Association Deen-cum-Principal College of Fisheries Dholi,
Muzaffarpur.
8. The Vice-Chancellor Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
9. The Director Administration, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour,
Bhagalpur.
10. The Comptoller, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur.
11. Bihar Animal Science , University, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, GA-23
Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to GA-23
For the University : Mr. VijayhShankar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Res. No. 8 to 10 : Mr. Sriram Krishna Advocate
For the Res. No. 11 : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
1. The Writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
(i) Issuance of appropriate writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.6168 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
2/5
in the nature of MANDAMUS,
commanding/directing the Respondents
to grant the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000
with effect from 1.1.1996 and revised
pay scale of Rs-9300 to 34,800 Grade
Pay Rs- 4600 to the petitioner which is
working as clerk in the College of
Fisheries under the Respondents/
University.
(ii) Issuance of appropriate writ
in the nature of mandamus,
commanding/ directing the
Respondents to grant the pay scale
equivocation to pay scale of Assistant
working in the Head quarter of the
Respondent/University especially when
the petitioner similar than.
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs to
which the the petitioner may be
deemed entitled under the law in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.
766 of 2016, along with analogous L.P.As., and
contended that the petitioner is a Head Clerk and
is entitled to the benefits arising out of the policy
decision taken by the State and the resolution
extending the benefit of upgradation of pay scale
to Clerks and Head Clerks.
3. On the other hand, the Learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.6168 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
3/5
for the respondents has contended that the
petitioner is not a Head Clerk but a Typist.
Paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit clearly
disclose that the petitioner superannuated on
31.05.2018 from the post of UDC (Typist) at Sanjay
Gandhi Institute of Dairy Technology, BASU, Patna.
4. The operative portion of the judgment
passed in L.P.A. No. 766 of 2016 reads as follows:
6. Claiming any pay parity
with similarly situated persons there
are number of events were required
to be taken note of like date of
joining, for which post and other
service conditions insofar as the post
held by respective parties. On the
last occasion we have taken note of
Apex Court decisions like The Union
of India and Ors. Vs. Rajib Khan
and Ors., P.U. Joshi and Ors. Vs.
Accountant General, Ahemdabad
and Union of India and Ors. Vs.
Pushpa Rani and ors. Today,
learned counsel for the State cited
S.C. Chandra and Ors. Vs. State
of Jharkhand and Ors. (2007) 8
SCC 279 (Para 27).
7. Reading of aforesaid
judgments of the Apex Court, it is
crystal clear that fixation of pay and
other service conditions including
upgradation of pay-scale is a policy
decision. In the present case,
petitioner State has taken a decision
and passed a resolution that
Patna High Court CWJC No.6168 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
4/5
upgradation of pay-scale is extended
to Clerks and Head-clerks. There is
no resolution or decision of the State
to extend upgradation of pay-scale
in so far as Steno-Typist is
concerned. Therefore, the
respondents have no statutory right
to claim upgradation of pay-scale on
par with such of those Clerks or
Head-clerks, since they form
separate class of persons and a class
discrimination is permissible under
Article 14 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the petitioner State has
made out a prima-facie case so as to
interfere with the order of the
learned single judge dated
07.04.2015 passed in C.J.W.C. No.
15661 of 2014 and it is set aside. If
any of the respondents are holding
of the posts of clerk or Head Clerk, in
that event concerned respondent is
hereby directed to extend the
aforementioned policy of
upgradation of pay-scale.
8. Hence, the L.P.As stand
allowed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions
and material available on record, this Court finds
that the petitioner superannuated from the post of
UDC (Typist), and does not belong to the cadre of
Clerks or Head Clerks. The benefit of upgradation
of pay scale under the policy decision of the State
has been extended only to Clerks and Head Clerks,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6168 of 2016 dt.03-11-2026
5/5
and no such benefit has been extended to
Typists/Steno-Typists. Therefore, the petitioner has
no statutory right to claim upgradation of pay scale
at par with Clerks and Head Clerks.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
Writ petition is dismissed.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Amandeep /-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date