Source of appointment cannot be a basis for denying Assured Career Progression benefits to compassionate appointees.

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Typist in the Saran Treasury on July 10, 1990, following the death of his father, an employee of the Treasury Cadre

Following a merger of posts in 1993, the petitioner was designated as a Clerk, and subsequently, the nomenclature was changed to Treasury Accountant

The petitioner received his 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit in 2002

Seeking further financial upgradation under the Finance Department’s Resolution No. 163 dated January 8, 2016, the petitioner filed a representation

This representation was rejected by the Grievance Redressal Committee via Memo No. 786 dated September 8, 2016

The rejection was based on the premise that the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 was reserved for clerks who opted for the Treasury Cadre in 1979, and that compassionate appointees were not "Accounting Clerks" entitled to such upgradation

1. Whether the State can legally distinguish between Treasury Clerks appointed directly and those appointed on compassionate grounds for the purpose of granting pay scales and ACP benefits

2. Whether the petitioner could be denied the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on the ground that he did not opt for the Treasury Cadre in 1979, despite being appointed in 1990

The court relied on the principles established in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Bihar (2001), which mandated the implementation of fitment committee recommendations regarding the Rs. 5000-8000 pay scale

It further applied the ratio from Prabhat Shankar Poddar v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 817 of 2007), which held that the source of appointment (compassionate ground) or the date of appointment cannot be used to reduce pay scales or deny benefits afforded to the cadre

The court also invoked the Division Bench ruling in State of Bihar v. Anit Kumar Singh (LPA No. 767 of 2017), asserting that once an individual is appointed to a department, any discrimination in granting ACP benefits based on the mode of entry is violative of the Assured Career Progression Scheme Rules, 2003

The court found the State’s distinction between "Treasury Clerks" (direct recruits/optants) and "Clerks in Treasury" (compassionate appointees) to be "specious" and lacking rationale

The court observed that the petitioner, appointed in 1990, could not have physically opted for a cadre in 1979; thus, using the 1979 option as a criterion for him was illogical

The court reasoned that under the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, and settled precedents, the State is barred from creating artificial sub-classifications within a single cadre to deny benevolent financial schemes

The court emphasized that the issue had attained finality up to the Supreme Court in similar matters, and the State's continued rejection of such claims was "in the teeth of" prior judicial directions

Consequently, the source of appointment loses significance once an employee is integrated into the cadre for the purpose of applying beneficial service rules

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to ACP benefits in accordance with Government Resolution No. 163 dated January 8, 2016

The respondents were directed to calculate the arrears and consequential benefits and pay the same to the petitioner, along with a detailed calculation sheet, within a period of three months