Annual increment sanctioned for BWDS employees does not extend to separate WDT members.

The petitioners were appointed in 2013 as members of district-level Watershed Development Teams (WDTs), designated as WDT Members—Social Mobilization and Institution Building Experts, initially receiving ₹11,000 per month.

Their honorarium was enhanced to ₹15,000 per month with effect from 1 January 2014 pursuant to a decision of the BWDS Management Committee dated 19 September 2013, specifically concerning selected WDT members.

Subsequently, the BWDS Governing Body resolved on 23 September 2020 to grant a 10% annual salary increment with effect from 1 April 2019 to BWDS employees.

Memo No. 520 dated 23 November 2020 communicated the benefit to various categories, including WDT members, and the petitioners received the enhanced payment from 2019 until April 2022.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents issued Order No. 724 dated 27 November 2024, cancelling Memo No. 520 on the ground that the 10% increment had not been approved for WDT members by a competent authority and that WDT personnel were engaged on outsourcing/contractual terms.

Whether the petitioners, as members of the district-level WDTs, were entitled to the 10% annual increment sanctioned by the BWDS Governing Body’s resolution dated 23 September 2020 and communicated through Memo No. 520 dated 23 November 2020.

Whether WDT members and BWDS employees constituted the same category of personnel for the purpose of applying the 10% annual increment.

Whether Order No. 724 dated 27 November 2024, cancelling Memo No. 520, was legally valid and could be issued without a prior opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Whether any increment already paid to the petitioners pursuant to Memo No. 520 was recoverable from them.

The Court applied Clause 12 of the Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008 (Revised Edition, 2011), which treats the WDT as a team constituted by the Project Implementing Agency and provides that its establishment costs, including salary and travel expenses, are to be met by the PIA.

The Guidelines further identify the Development Commissioner, Bihar-cum-Chairman of the BWDS, as the competent authority for revision of WDT wages.

The Court distinguished between the WDT and the BWDS establishment, holding that although both function under the Governing Body headed by the Development Commissioner, they are separate categories of personnel.

The Court also applied the principle that an administrative communication cannot extend the scope of an underlying resolution beyond the category actually covered by that resolution.

The Court treated the petitioners’ appointment letters and the 2013 resolution as decisive evidence that they were WDT members, not employees of the BWDS establishment.

It contrasted the 2013 resolution, which expressly concerned enhancement of honorarium for WDT members, with the 23 September 2020 resolution, whose text sanctioned the 10% annual increment only for “employees of BWDS”.

Although Memo No. 520 subsequently included WDT members within the benefit, the Chief Executive Officer’s communication could not enlarge the Governing Body’s resolution.

The Court therefore held that the inclusion of WDT members in Memo No. 520 was erroneous and that Order No. 724 merely corrected that erroneous implementation rather than reviewing or overruling a valid decision of the Development Commissioner.

Accordingly, the 10% annual increment sanctioned by the BWDS resolution dated 23 September 2020 did not extend to them, and the cancellation of Memo No. 520 by Order No. 724 dated 27 November 2024 was valid.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no direction was issued for payment of future increments or arrears.

However, any benefit already paid to the petitioners or similarly situated persons under Memo No. 520 was protected from recovery.