Patna High Court
Shahid AkhtarversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that the Finance Department’s distinction denying ACP benefits to compassionate appointees is invalid and the petitioner is entitled to the ACP benefits and pay‑scale as per the Government resolution.
Summary
The petitioner, Shahid Akhtar, a Treasury Accountant appointed on compassionate grounds in 1990, sought quashing of Memo No. 786 dated 08‑09‑2016 which denied him Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits and the pay‑scale of Rs 5,000‑8,000 under Government Resolution No. 163 dated 08‑01‑2016. The Finance Department had distinguished compassionate appointees from clerks who opted for the Treasury cadre in 1979, rejecting his representation. The Court examined earlier decisions (e.g., Dhananjay Sharma, Prabhat Shankar Poddar, Anit Kumar Singh) which held that such discrimination is impermissible and that compassionate appointees are entitled to the same benefits. Relying on those precedents, the Court found the Finance Department’s distinction invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside Memo No. 7186/2016, directed the respondents to calculate and pay the ACP benefits within three months, and ordered disclosure of the calculation details. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a Treasury Clerk appointed on compassionate ground is entitled to Assured Career Progression benefits and the Rs 5,000‑8,000 pay‑scale under Government Resolution No. 163/2016.
- Whether the Finance Department’s distinction between directly appointed clerks and compassionate appointees is legally valid.
- Whether the order Memo No. 7186 dated 08‑09‑2016 rejecting the petitioner’s representation should be quashed.
Subjects
- Assured Career Progression
- Compassionate appointment
- Pay scale
- Discrimination
- Civil writ jurisdiction
- Government resolution
- Finance Department
- Bihar State Litigation Policy
- Equal treatment
- Public service law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.969 of 2017
======================================================
Shahid Akhtar Son of Late Akhtarul Hasan Ansari, Resident of Mohalla-
Karimchak, P.O.- Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra
presently posted as Accountant, Saran Treasury at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
4. Secretary-Cum-Chairman, Finance Department Grievance Redressal
Committee, Old Secretariate, Patna.
5. Additional Secretary-Cum-Chairman Finance Department Grievance
Redressal Committee, Old Secretariat
6. The Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
7. The Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
8. The Under Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna.
9. The Treasury Officer, Saran at Chapra.
10. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
Ms. Shally Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 13-03-2026
1. Heard Mr.Siya Ram Shahi learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Parijat Saurav, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
2/21
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in
quashing the Memo no. 786 dated 08.09.2016
issued by Finance Department, Grievance
Redressal Committee contained in Annexure-2 at
Page-47 whereby the petitioner's representation
seeking grant of ACP benefit in terms of the
Govt. Resolution dated 08.01.2016 contained in
Annexure-3 of the Supplementary Affidavit at
Page-68 with reckoning his regular service of 20
years, has been rejected.
(ii) The petitioner has also prayed for grant of
1st ACP benefit w.e.f. 11.07.2002 in the Pay
Scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and 2nd ACP benefit
w.e.f. 11.07.2010 in Pay Band of Rs. 9300-
34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
(iii) The petitioner has also prayed for direction
to grant all the consequential benefits.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that his father who
was an employee in the Treasury cadre having died in harness,
the petitioner being a graduate was appointed on compassionate
ground as a Typist on 10.7.1990 in the Directorate of Treasury
and Accounts in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-13-1800. He joined
on 11.7.1990. The petitioner passed his Hindi Noting and
Drafting test on 21.2.1992 and also successfully cleared his
accounts examination for clerk.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the 6 th Pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
3/21
Revision, he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with
effect from 1.1.1996 in light of the judgment dated 26.7.2001 in
the case of Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Bihar;
2001(4)PLJR 533. He was granted the benefit of the 1st ACP
(Assured Career Progression) in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000
on 11.7.2002. After 7th Pay Revision, he was put in the pay
band of Rs. 9300-34,800 with pay grade of Rs. 4600 with effect
from 1.4.2007. He is at present working as Accountant in Saran
Treasury at Chapra. The petitioner who was initially appointed
as a Typist on compassionate ground and posted in the Saran
Treasury, after merger of his post, the petitioner was designated
as Clerk. In terms of the Memo no. 7063 dated 28.9.2000, the
nomenclature of Treasury Clerk was changed to Treasury
Accountant.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner moved before the respondents for
grant of benefit of financial upgradation as provided in the
resolution dated 8.1.2016 of the Finance Department,
Government of Bihar. However, the respondent Government of
Bihar, came out with a notification contained in letter no. 2856
dated 6.4.2016, misinterpreting the Finance Department
resolution no. 163 dated 8.1.2016 and held that clerks appointed
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
4/21
on compassionate ground as in the case of the petitioner are not
Accounting Clerks and are thus not entitled to the benefits of the
said financial upgradation. On the application having been filed
by the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar State
Litigation Policy, 2011, the Grievance Redressal Committee of
the Finance Department in its meeting held on 8.9.2016 was
pleased to reject the same. As such, the instant writ application
for the reliefs prayed for as stated herein above.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that in the case of Dhananjay Sharma (supra), this
Court while allowing the application and quashing orders/letters
impugned directed the State- respondents to implement the
recommendation of the Fitment Appellate Committee forthwith
positively within one month. Further direction was given to the
respondents to pay to the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 5000-
8000 which they were admittedly getting by virtue of interim
orders passed by this Court from time to time. The said
judgment on being challenged in LPA no. 165 of 2002 (The
State of Bihar & Anr. versus Dhananjay Sharma & Ors.) was
dismissed on 27.4.2010 and the S.L.P.(Civil) no. 1381 of
2011(The State of Bihar & Anr. versus Dhananjay Sharma &
Ors.) preferred by State of Bihar, was also dismissed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
5/21
12.5.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated
20.7.2011 passed in CWJC no. 817 of 2007, the writ application
filed by Prabhat Sankar Poddar, reducing his pay scale of
Rs.5000-8000 to Rs. 4000-6000, was set aside. Similar relief
was granted to the petitioner Anit Kumar Singh vide judgment
dated 25.10.2016 passed in CWJC no. 5021 of 2011 (Anit
Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar). It is finally submitted that even
the appeal (LPA no. 767 of 2017) preferred against the judgment
dated 25.10.2016 was dismissed.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents
have erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and
by denying him the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and grant of
financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme.
8. The application is opposed by learned counsel for the
respondents. It is submitted that in similar matters in cases filed
by persons appointed on compassionate ground, the matter came
up for consideration before this Court and by order dated
5.4.2016 passed in CWJC no. 3165 of 2014 (Bali Ram Singh &
Ors. versus the State of Bihar & Ors.) no relief was granted to
the petitioners therein. It was further submitted that so far as the
judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed in CWJC no. 5021 of 2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
6/21
(Anit Kumar Singh versus the State of Bihar) is concerned,
though the letter impugned was set aside, however, the State of
Bihar preferred an appeal (LPA no. 767 of 2016). Learned
counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner
was appointed on compassionate ground as Typist in Saran
Treasury. The post of Typist which was sanctioned in the
Treasury on being merged with the post of Clerk on 15.1.1993,
the petitioner was designated as a Clerk. The Fitment Appellate
Committee in its report had observed that those Collectorate
staff who had opted as Treasury cadre in the year 1979 were to
be treated on a different footing from other incumbents. Only
269 old employees were recommended the replacement scale of
Rs. 1400-2600 ie the revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000. It was
submitted that as per the report, as the number reduced due to
attrition, the post would get retracted back to the scale of Rs.
4000-6000. It was submitted that so far as the case of persons
like the petitioner appointed as Accounts Clerk on
compassionate ground is concerned, having been appointed in
the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 from 1.4.1986, he is entitled to
get 1st ACP of Rs. 4500-7000, 2nd ACP of Rs. 5000-8000, and 3rd
ACP of Rs. 5500-9000. It was submitted that the petitioner not
being entitled for the relief prayed in his representation, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
7/21
Grievance Redressal Committee rightly rejected the same by its
order dated 8.9.2016. There is no merit in the instant writ
application and the same be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
10. Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be mentioned
here that on his father namely Akhtarul Hasan Ansari, an
employee of the Treasury Cadre having died in harness, the
petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground as a
Typist on 10.7.1990. He joined in the Saran Treasury as a Typist
on 11.7.1990. The petitioner cleared his Half Yearly
Examination for Clerks in the year 1991 and passed his Hindi
Noting and Drafting test on 21.2.1992.
11. On introduction of the ACP Scheme in the year 2003,
the petitioner was granted the benefit of the first ACP Scheme
with effect from 11.7.2002. After the 6th Pay Revision, the
petitioner was put in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 which he
availed from 1.4.1997 to 10.7.2002. He was granted the benefits
of the 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and he
remained in the said pay scale from 11.7.2002 to 31.3.2007.
After the 7th Pay Revision, the petitioner was put in the pay band
of Rs. 9300-34,800 with a grade pay of Rs. 4600 with effect
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
8/21
from 1.4.2007.
12. It may be observed here that in the year 1993 vide
Finance Department letter no.10 dated 15.1.1993, after merger
of posts, the petitioner was designated as a Clerk. On the
petitioner filing his representation dated 28.4.2016 under the
Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 for grant of pay scale of Rs.
5000-8000 and for financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme
on the basis of the Finance Department Resolution no. 163
dated 8.1.2016, the same came to be rejected in the proceedings
contained in memo no. 7186 dated 8.9.2016.
13. On perusal of the order/decision impugned it would
transpire that the reasons given therein were that pay scale of
Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996 had been given only to
those clerks who had been appointed in the Treasury cadre by
exercise of option in the year 1979. In this respect, it may be
mentioned here that the petitioner was appointed on
compassionate ground as a Typist on 11.7.1990. It was only in
the year 1993, after merger of his post that the petitioner was
designated as a Clerk.
14. The issue of the scale of pay of one Prabhat Sankar
Poddar being reduced from Rs. 5000-8000 of Rs. 4000-6000 on
ground that he was appointed as a Treasury Clerk on
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
9/21
compassionate ground in May, 1988 and that he had not opted
for Treasury Cadre in the year 1979, came up for consideration
by this Court in CWJC no. 817 of 2007 (Prabhat Shankar
Poddar versus State of Bihar). Placing reliance on the
judgments in the case of Dhananjay Sharma (supra), this Court
quashed the impugned order with a direction to the respondent
authorities to grant to the petitioner therein pay scale of Rs.
5000-8000 with effect from 11.1.1996 with a further direction to
refund the amount recovered from him. Relevant part of the
order dated 20.7.2011 passed in CWJC no. 817 of 2007 is
reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“5. Having perused the impugned order
dated 16.11.2006, Annexure-1 it is quite evident
that scale payable to the petitioner has been
reduced to Rs.4000-6000/- only on the ground
that he was appointed as Treasury Clerk on
compassionate ground in May 1988 and had not
opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. There is no
dispute that petitioner was appointed as
Treasury Clerk in the scale of Rs.1400-2600/-
which was also being paid to other Treasury
Clerks who opted for Treasury Cadre in 1979. In
terms of the recommendation of the Pay Revision
Committee the scale of Rs.1400-2600 was
revised to Rs.4000-6000/-. Appointment having
been made at a later date cannot be a ground for
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
10/21
reducing the pay scale. This Court under orders
dated 26.07.2001, Annexure-2 appreciating the
fact that petitioner and others were appointed in
the scale of Rs.1400-2600/- revised scale
whereof is Rs.4000-6000/- quashed the
different order/resolution reducing the scale to
Rs.4000-6000/- with specific direction to allow
the petitioner and others the scale of Rs.5000-
8000/-. While admitting L.P. A. No.165 of 2002
interim order dated 17.02.2004 was passed
approving payment of salary to the petitioner in
the higher scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, in my
opinion, therefore, there was hardly any
occasion for the State respondents under the
impugned order dated 16.11.2006 and Finance
Department letter dated 13.03.2007, Annexure-
13 to again reduce the pay scale of the petitioner
from 5000-8000/- to 4000-6000/-. Accordingly,
the impugned order dated 16.11.2006, Annexure-
1 as also the Finance Department letter no.1693
dated 13.03.2007, Annexure-13 is quashed with
direction to the respondent authorities to grant
the petitioner pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with
effect from 1.1.1996 and the amount already
recovered should also be refunded to him within
a reasonable time.
6. The writ application is, accordingly,
allowed.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated here that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
11/21
petitioner was appointed on the pay scale of Rs.1200-1800
under the 5th Pay Revision, in which scale he remained from
11.7.1990 to 31.3.1997. With the 6th Pay Revision, he was put in
the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 which he availed from 1.4.1997
to 10.7.2002. He was granted the benefit of the 1 st ACP and
remained in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 from 11.7.2002 to
31.3.2007.
16. The order dated 20.7.2011 passed in CWJC no. 817 of
2007 was challenged in LPA no. 2006 of 2011 (State of Bihar
versus Prabhat Shankar Poddar) and the said appeal was
dismissed in limine by order dated 5.12.2013. Even the review
application (Civil Review no. 182 of 2014; State of Bihar vs.
Prabhat Shankar Poddar) was dismissed for default on
23.9.2015.
17. The Finance Department, Government of Bihar, came
with the letter no. 2856 dated 6.4.2016 bringing out distinction
between a Treasury Clerk appointed directly and the Clerk of
treasury appointed on compassionate ground. By the said letter,
it was directed that if the benefit of resolution no. 163 dated
8.1.2016 which has been denied to the petitioner in the instant
case, has been given to clerks of treasury appointed on
compassionate ground, the same be recovered.
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
12/21
18. The letter no. 2856 dated 6.4.2016 came to be
considered in CWJC no. 5021 of 2011 (Anit Kumar Singh vs.
State of Bihar) wherein the learned Single Judge by judgment
dated 25.10.2016 allowed the writ petition, set aside the letter
no. 2856 dated 6.4.2016 and directed for payment of all
consequential benefits to the petitioner therein. The relevant
portion of the judgment dated 25.10.2016 is reproduced herein
below for ready reference:
“Primarily, the Court is of the opinion that
Annexure-18 is exactly in the teeth of order
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 817 of 2007, which was
finally settled by the Division Bench. There was
no occasion for the State authority to again
create a distinction between the Treasury Clerk
appointed directly and the Clerk of the Treasury,
who were appointed on compassionate ground.
Normally, after the appointment on
compassionate ground, an employee may not be
discriminated with other employee. Since the
dispute was already set at rest and respondents
themselves had taken the plea in the counter
affidavit that one similar matter was pending
before this Court and this Court had decided the
issue, thereafter the State authority may not be
allowed to create any distinction and deny the
relief, which has been sought for in the present
writ petition, similar to the reliefs, which were
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
13/21
claimed in earlier writ petitions.
By way of referring to an order dated 26-07-
2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3063 of 1992
passed by a Single Bench of this Court, Sri Anil
Kumar Sinha, learned Govt. Advocate - 1 had
tried to distinguish the case, however; Sri Shahi,
learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
that the said order is per incurium, since it was
contrary to the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 817
of 2007, which was approved by the Division
Bench. The Court is in agreement
with the submission of Mr. Shahi.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and
order contained in Annexure- 18 i.e. letter no.
2856 dated 06-04-2016 is also set aside.
All the consequential benefits, in view of
setting aside the impugned order and allowing
the writ petition shall be provided to the
petitioners within a period of three months from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
(emphasis supplied)
19. The appeal (LPA no. 767 of 2016; State of Bihar vs.
Anit Kumar Singh) preferred against the judgment dated
25.10.2016 passed in CWJC no. 5021 of 2011 was dismissed on
27.9.2018. Relevant part of the judgment dated 27.9.2018
passed in LPA no. 767 of 2017 is reproduced herein below for
ready reference:
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
14/21
“2. We have heard the learned counsel for
the respective parties at length and perused the
impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
2.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted
that as such the issue has already been decided
by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 817 of
2007 (i.e. Prabhat Shankar Poddar vs. The State
of Bihar and Ors.) which came to be confirmed
by a Division Bench of this Court and it was held
to not to grant benefit of ACP to those employees
who were appointed on compassionate
ground.
3. However, it appears that thereafter the
State came out with a Notification/Order
contained in Letter No.2856 dated 06.04.2016 by
which it was decided that the persons appointed
on compassionate ground shall not be entitled to
ACP. It appears that the aforesaid order was
absolutely in teeth of the earlier decision of the
learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division
Bench. We are also of the opinion that there
should not be any discrimination in granting the
benefit of ACP, once a person is appointed in the
department, may be on compassionate ground.
3.1. Any person appointed, may be on
compassionate ground, on completion of certain
years, as per the Assured Career Progression
Scheme, Rule 2003, shall be entitled to the first
and second ACP as per the Rule 2003.
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
15/21
4. Under such circumstances, as such, no
error has been committed by the learned Single
Judge in setting aside the order/notification
contained in Letter No. 2856 dated 06.04.2016
and holding that the original writ petitioner
shall be entitled to ACP as per Rule 2003, we are
in complete agreement with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge and no interference is
called for by this Court in intra court appellate
jurisdiction.
5. Under such circumstances, the
present appeal is dismissed.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Civil Review no. 44 of 2019 (The State of Bihar
versus Anit Kumar Singh) filed praying for a review of the
judgment dated 27.9.2018 passed in LPA no.767 of 2017 was
also dismissed vide judgment dated 31.7.2019. The relevant
part of the judgment dated 31.7.2019 is reproduced herein
below for ready reference.
“15. On these grounds, it has been asserted
by the State/petitioners that in none of the
litigations, the distinction between such
inductees as Treasury Clerks and compassionate
appointees was taken note of and there was no
application of mind with respect to the
distinction between Treasury Clerks
and Clerks in Treasury.
16. On hearing the parties, we are of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
16/21
view that though there does appear to be some
distinction between two class of employees and
the government could have treated them
separately so far as pay-scale is concerned, but
once a decision has been taken to afford such
benefits of the scheme of financial progression
available to all Treasury Clerks, any further
distinction on the basis of source of appointment
would amount to reverting such persons who
have been the recipients of the benefits to a
lesser scale and if such a decision is taken,
recovery would have to be effected. This would
unnecessary create litigation which is neither
advisable nor expedient.
17. These issues/arguments were available to
the State/petitioners and from the judgment of
the Division Bench, it appears that such
argument was advanced and answered by
holding that the circular/notification dated
06.04.2016, not granting the benefits of ACP to
compassionate appointees, was in teeth of the
earlier decisions of the learned Single Judge,
which was affirmed by the Division Bench as
also by the Supreme Court.
18. The impugned judgment has also taken
note of the fact that there should not be any
discrimination in grant of the benefit of ACP.
Once a person is appointed in the department,
even though on compassionate grounds, he
would be entitled for the benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
17/21
19. The power of review inheres in every
Court of plenary jurisdiction but such power is
only for preventing miscarriage of justice or to
correct grave and palpable errors committed by
it. There are definite limitations to exercise of the
power of review and it could be exercised only
on the discovery of new and important matters
or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within the knowledge of a
person seeking review, or could not be produced
by him at the time when the order was made. It
may also be exercised where some mistake or
error apparent on the face of record is found or
on any such analogous grounds. A review of a
judgment cannot be made on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits as this would
fall in the domain of appeal.
20. From the arguments advanced on behalf
of the State/petitioners, it appears that the
review has been sought as if for the purpose of
re-hearing and for a fresh decision in the case.
The grounds for review were available to the
State/petitioners which was never agitated. Even
otherwise, we are of the view that taking any
other decision in not extending the benefits of a
benevolent scheme to compassionate appointees
would not be just and proper, once the issue has
been set at rest till the Supreme Court. Once
appointment is made on a post, the source of
appointment looses its significance, specially for
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
18/21
the purposes of application of beneficent
provisions. The distinction between the Treasury
Clerks and Clerks in Treasury also appear to be
specious and does not have any rationale.
21. Thus, for the reasons that the judgment
under review does not suffer from any palpable
error of record or that it is a result of oversight,
we are not inclined to interfere/review the
judgment.
22. The petition is dismissed for the reasons
aforesaid.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. So far as the order impugned contained in Memo
no.7816 dated 8.9.2016 is concerned, perusal of the same
would show that the representation of the petitioner has been
rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner who was
appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground through the
Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts and posted in the
Treasury, could not have been treated at par with the clerks
who opted for the Treasury Cadre in the year 1979. It may be
observed here that the petitioner could not have opted for the
Treasury Cadre in the year 1979, having been appointed on
compassionate ground as a Typist in the year 1990.
22. Further from perusal of the relevant part of the
judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed in CWJC no.5021 of 2011,
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
19/21
this Court held that normally after appointment on
compassionate ground, an employee may not be discriminated
with other employees. In view of the matter already having
been settled in another similar matter, the State authority may
not be allowed to create any distinction and deny the relief.
LPA no.767 of 2017 preferred against the order dated
25.10.2016 was dismissed. In the Civil Review no.44 of 2019
preferred for review of the order passed in the LPA, this Court
observed that once a decision has been taken to afford such
benefit of the scheme of financial progression to all the
Treasury Clerks, any further distinction on the basis of source
of appointment would create unnecessary litigation which was
neither advisable nor expedient. Taking note of the fact that in
the judgment under review the Court had held that once a
person is appointed in the Department, even though on
compassionate grounds, he would be entitled for the benefits of
the ACP, the Court dismissed the review application. The Court
finally held that taking any other decision in not extending the
benefit of a benevolent scheme to compassionate appointees
would not be just and proper once the issue has been set at rest
till the Supreme Court.
23. Taking note of the judgments of this Court in the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
20/21
of Prabhat Shankar Poddar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (order
dated 20.7.2011 in CWJC no.817 of 2007), Anit Kumar Singh
& Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (judgment dated
25.10.2016 in CWJC no.5021 of 2011), The State of Bihar &
Ors. vs. Anit Kumar Singh & Ors. (judgment dated 27.9.2018
passed in LPA no.767 of 2017) and The State of Bihar & Ors.
vs. Anit Kumar Singh & Ors. (judgment dated 31.7.2019
passed in Civil Review no.44 of 2019), the distinction between
Treasury Clerk appointed directly and the Clerk of Treasury
who are appointed on compassionate ground having been done
away with, in the opinion of the Court, the respondents
committed an error in their order contained in Memo no.7186
dated 8.9.2016 rejecting the representation filed by the
petitioner.
24. As such, the order contained in Memo no.7186 dated
8.9.2016 issued by the Finance Department, Grievance
Redressal Committee cannot be sustained and is hereby set
aside. Further the petitioner is held entitled for grant of ACP
benefits in terms of the Government resolution contained in
Memo no.163 dated 8.1.2016.
25. The respondents shall calculate the ACP benefits
payable to the petitioner accordingly and shall pay the
Patna High Court CWJC No.969 of 2017 dt.13-03-2026
21/21
consequential amounts within a period of three months. Along
with the amount paid, the respondents shall also provide to the
petitioner the details of calculation.
26. The writ application is accordingly allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 8-1-2026
Uploading Date 13-3-2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…