Claims concerning service benefits fall within Bihar’s Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

The petitioner, a State Government employee, sought a direction for grant of monetary and consequential service benefits attached to the post carrying Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of ₹7,600.

He claimed eligibility on completion of 35 years of service and asserted that similarly situated juniors in the gradation list had already been granted the benefit.

He further sought arrears, statutory interest, and consequential reliefs.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the grievance concerned service benefits and was required to be pursued under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

The High Court examined the definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c) and the procedure under Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules.

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for grant of Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of ₹7,600, together with arrears and consequential benefits, constituted a service-benefit grievance covered by the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

2. Whether the petitioner should be directed to avail the statutory grievance-redressal mechanism before pursuing the claim before the High Court.

The Court applied Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, which defines “complaint” to include matters relating to salary, increments, promotion, ACP/MACP, allowances, and other service or retirement benefits.

Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules permits serving or retired State Government employees to file complaints relating to service matters or retirement benefits through the prescribed online procedure; ordinarily, each application must relate to one subject.

The Court treated the prescribed grievance-redressal mechanism as the appropriate forum for adjudication of the petitioner’s service-benefit claim.

The petitioner’s demand for a higher pay scale/grade pay, based on length of service and alleged parity with juniors, directly concerned salary, increment, promotion or service benefits falling within the broad definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c).

Since Rule 3 provided a specific procedure for such grievances, the Court accepted the State’s preliminary objection and declined to adjudicate the substantive entitlement in the writ petition at that stage.

Instead, it preserved the petitioner’s claim by granting him liberty to invoke the statutory mechanism and directed the competent authority to decide the complaint within the period prescribed by the 2019 Rules.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a complaint under the Rules within 30 days from 7 September 2026.

Upon filing, the concerned authority was directed to pass an order within the time specified under the Rules.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without deciding the petitioner’s substantive claim for Grade Pay of ₹7,600, arrears, interest, or consequential benefits.