Patna High Court
Sudha TrivedyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the two‑year kalavadhi provision and the resolution granting grade pay are valid and do not constitute discrimination.
Summary
Sudha Trivedy, a trained teacher appointed in 2019, filed a writ petition seeking the inclusion of grade pay in her salary, alleging that the Education Department’s Resolution No. 1530 (dated 11‑08‑2015) and subsequent notifications discriminated against her by withholding grade pay until a two‑year "kalavadhi" period. The State of Bihar contended that grade pay was abolished from 01‑01‑2016 under the 7th Pay Commission and that the appellant had already been granted the appropriate grade pay as of January 2020. The Single Judge held that the resolution and the two‑year kalavadhi requirement were valid, not violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution, and that the appellant was not discriminated against. On appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s findings, noting that the earlier Division Bench judgment (2023) upheld the two‑year kalavadhi rule and that there was no perverse finding of fact. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of Clause 2.8 of Resolution No. 1530 (11‑08‑2015) requiring a two‑year kalavadhi before granting grade pay to trained teachers.
- Whether the abolition of grade pay by the 7th Pay Commission (effective 01‑01‑2016) renders the resolution unconstitutional or discriminatory under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to grade pay for the period after completing the kalavadhi.
- Whether the findings of fact by the Single Judge are perverse and warrant interference on appeal.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 16, Article 166, Article 21, Article 309
Subjects
- grade pay
- discrimination
- service rules
- kalavadhi
- 7th Pay Commission
- Articles 14,16,21
- Bihar education department
- Letters Patent Appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.666 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8407 of 2021
======================================================
Sudha Trivedy wife of Siyaram Pandey, resident of E/105, Pushpanjali
Vihar Apartment, Saristabad, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar Patna.
2. The principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Secondary Education Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Higher Secondary Education Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad- Vaishali.
7. The District Education Officer Vaishali.
8. The District Programme Officer (establishment), Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.A.G.-3
Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, A.C. to A.A.G.-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-01-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
2/11
appellant, Sudha Trivedy challenging the order dated
01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.
8407 of 2021.
1.1 The appellant filed the writ petition with the
following prayers:-
“(I) For issuance of writ of certiorari for
setting aside/quashing Para no. (2.8) of file
no.11/bi 1-8/2013-1530 dated 11/8/2015 issued by
the education department, Gov. of Bihar, Patna
(annexure-6)
(II) and be pleased to pass a writ in the
nature of writ of mandamus or an appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions
commanding the respondents to fix and make
payment of salary to the petitioner with
adding/calculating grade pay in the pay band-
5200-20200 with grade pay 2800/ and other
benefits like a regular trained assistant teacher as
per the letter issued in this regard by the Govt. of
Bihar as contained in sankalp sanchika no.11/bi 1-
08/2013(ansh-2)1632 dated 21-06-2017(Annexure-
7) for which the petitioner is legally entitled for
And/or be pleased to pass such other order or
orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
1.2. The grounds for seeking the relief in the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
3/11
petition are as follows:-
(i) For that the action/inaction of the
respondent authorities are otherwise bad in the eye
of law.
(ii) For that the petitioner who is a
trained (B. Ed) +2 Hindi teacher appointed after
following due process of law but while making
payment of salary the same is fixed without grant
of grade pay, likewise an untrained
employee/teacher, in a wrong and illegal manner.
(iii) For that the Education Department,
State of Bihar, vide its sankalp bearing file no.
11/bi1-08/2013 (ansh-2)1632 dated 21-06-
2017(annexure-7) clearly states that a higher
secondary trained teacher (10+2) is entitled for a
salary in the pay band 5200-20200 with grade pay
2800 and as per the above notification the basic
revised salary is to be fixed to a trained teacher but
while fixation of salary no grade pay is
granted/calculated and wrong/less salary is being
fixed and paid to the petitioner which is causing
financial loss to the petitioner, amounting violation
of the fundamental right of a citizen.
(iv) For that the action of the
respondents are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory
and not sustainable in the eye of law.
(v) For that the action of the respondents
are against the objective of article 14, 16 and
against article 21 of the constitution of India.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
4/11
2. The counter affidavit has been filed by the
Respondent No. 2 wherein it has been stated as follows:-
"5. That it is most humbly submitted that
the instant case has been filed by the petitioner
inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for setting aside / quashing paragraph
no. 2.8 of file no. 11/bi.1-8/2013 - 1530 dated
11.08.2015 issued by the Education department,
Government of Bihar, Patna (Annexure P/6 to the
writ petition) and further for issuance of a writ on
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to fix and make payment of salary to
the petitioner with adding / calculating grade pay
in the pay band 5200 - 20200 with grade pay
2800/- and other benefits like a regular trained
teacher as per the letter issued in this regard by the
Government of Bihar as contained in sankalp
sanchika no. 11/bi.1-8/2013 (ansh - 2) -1632 dated
21.06.2017 (Annexure P/7 to the writ petition).
6. That it is most humbly submitted that
upon perusal of the records of the writ petition, it
transpires that a Counter Affidavit has been filed
by the respondent nos. 07 and 08 in this case.
However, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
17.04.2025 has been pleased to observe and direct
that:-
"...2. As the learned Counsels appearing
on behalf of the state are not able to defend letter
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
5/11
no. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, a request is made to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department
to connect virtually on 22.04.2025 at 2:15 p.m. to
explain the effect of letter no. 1530 dated
11.08.2015 and any similar letter issued by the
Education Department affecting the right of Niyojit
teachers, who were appointed in terms of Bihar
Panchayat Elementary School Service
(Appointment, Promotion, Transfer, Disciplinary
Proceedings and Service Condition) Rules, 2006,
creating a class within the class of the Niyojit
teachers...".
7. That it is most humbly submitted that
thus, this Counter Affidavit is being filed in
furtherance and also in compliance of the order
dated 17.04.2025. This Counter Affidavit is limited
to the query made by this Hon'ble Court vide the
above mentioned order. The deponent craves leave
to file supplementary counter affidavit on any
specific issue or otherwise if and when required or
directed by the Hon'ble Court.
8. That at the very outset it is most
humbly submitted that the primary issue involved
in this writ petition i.e., the alleged discrimination
against the Niyojit teachers in terms of clause 2.8
of the memo no. 1530 dated 11.08.2015 whereby it
has been directed that "the pay scale along with
grade pay shall be payable to the librarians,
trained elementary, secondary and senior
secondary Niyojit teachers or in future Niyojit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
6/11
teachers after completion of two years of their
service. In the period of two years, they shall be
paid pay scale in accordance with untrained
elementary, untrained secondary and untrained
senior secondary teachers" is no more res integra
as this state policy has been upheld by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide judgement dated
10.08.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 2022.
9. That it is most humbly submitted that
prior to issuance of memo no. 1530 dated
11.08.2015, Niyojit teachers were getting fixed
salary until the State Government prescribed Pay
structure to Niyojit teachers vide the said
Resolution dated 11.08.2015. The intent of the
State Government is clearly to provide enhanced
financial benefits to the Niyojit teachers and, it was
only in continuation of the above Resolution No.
1530 dated 11.08.2015 that Resolution No. 1632
dated 21.06.2017 was also issued sanctioning
revised pay to Niyojit teachers and Librarians.
10. That it is most humbly submitted that
the resolution dated 21.06.2017 is issued in
continuance of the resolution dated 11.08.2015 and
further in that series only, the memo no. 1900
dated 04.10.2019 has also been issued."
3. The learned Single Judge after taking note of the
pleadings and hearing the learned counsel for the respective
parties came to hold as follows:-
"6. Petitioner is aggrieved for non-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
7/11
payment of Grade Pay which allegedly has been
denied to her. Learned counsel submitted that the
Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, which for
the first time, provides for Grade Pay with Pay
Scale to trained teachers only after completion of
two years of ‘Kalavadhi’, is not in conformity with
the Rules, 2006 as amended till date. In this
background, learned counsel submitted that both
trained and untrained teachers have been put on
the same platform which is discriminatory and
requires interference of this Court.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the State duly sworn by the District
Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali
giving information that the Education Department
issued Letter No. 1900 dated 04.10.2019 that those
trained teachers who have completed two years
service after 01.01.2016 cannot be granted Grade
Pay, because the provision of the Grade Pay had
ended after 01.01.2016. It has further been stated
that the petitioner was appointed on 30.03.2019,
thereafter after completion of two years Kalavadhi,
the petitioner became entitled for Grade Pay 2800,
corresponding Level-4, Index-1, as on 10.01.2020,
her basic pay was fixed to the tune of Rs.13780/-
(Level-1, Index-2) and accordingly, the petitioner
is being paid in accordance with law. The
petitioner has not been discriminated in any
manner.
18. The Grade Pay had come to an end
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
8/11
with effect from 01.01.2016 as a result of 7th Pay
Commission. Pay Matrix introduced a simplified,
transparent and more efficient system for
managing salaries and pension. It merged pay
band and grade pay into a single unified level
eliminating discrepancies.
19. It has been clarified by learned
Advocate General that the petitioner has not been
discriminated in any manner rather the Resolution
is beneficial in nature irrespective of their
appointment as per Rules, 2006. He further
explained that the mechanism of giving the benefit
of grade pay to the teachers from the date of their
appointment subject to kalavadhi of two years to
all the Niyojit Teachers is not discriminatory in any
manner.
20. In the present case, the petitioner
who was appointed in the year 2019 has already
been granted the benefit of grade pay in Level 4,
Index – 1 in terms of the Clause 2.8 of the
Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, which
prescribes two years of Kalavadhi from the date of
appointment i.e. 10.04.2019. The case of the
petitioner is covered by a Division Bench Judgment
of this Court vide Judgment dated 10.08.2023
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 2022 (Rajanish
Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.), wherein the Division Bench has held the
kalavadhi for a period of two years from the date
of initial appointment to be valid. Therefore, no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
9/11
interference can be made by this Court in this
regard.
21. Clause 2.8 of the Resolution No.
1530 dated 11.08.2015 prescribes Kalavadhi for a
period of two years for granting Grade Pay in
accordance with the qualification and entitlement
which is entirely in domain of the State
Government to include such condition which is
subject to Kalavadhi of two years to the eligible
teachers. The Resolution dated 11.08.2015 cannot
be said to be in violation of the Rules framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution and the same has
been issued in exercise of the power conferred
under Article 166 of the Constitution and challenge
of the Clause 2.8 of the aforesaid Resolution on the
point of discrimination is rejected in the case of the
petitioner, who has been appointed after coming
into force of the said Resolution."
4. There is no dispute that the Division Bench has
considered the Clause 2.8 of Resolution No. 1530 dated
11.08.2015 and has accordingly held that the period of two years
from the date of initial appointment is valid. The said judgment
passed by the learned Division Bench has not been assailed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, in view of the
finding given by the learned Division Bench, the learned Single
Judge is quite justified in arriving at the conclusion recorded in
paragraph no. 21 of the impugned order.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
10/11
5. In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench may
undoubtedly be entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and
law, however, the entertainment of a Letters Patent Appeal is
discretionary. Normally, the Division Bench would not, unless
there are cogent reasons, differ from the findings of fact arrived
at by the learned Single Judge. Even a first appellate court,
being the final court of appeal on facts, is required to exercise a
certain degree of restraint.
6. In an intra-court appeal, interference with findings
of fact is warranted only if the appellate Bench reaches the
conclusion that the findings of the learned Single Judge are
perverse. The same shall not be disturbed merely because
another view, or even a better view, is possible. There should be
no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
7. In essence, a Letters Patent Appeal provides an
internal check and balance, ensuring judicial oversight and
protecting citizens rights by allowing a thorough review of a
Single Judge’s decision.
8. After going through the impugned order, which is
primarily based on the judgment passed by the learned Division
Bench, we find no palpable illegality or perversity therein.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.666 of 2025 dt.12-01-2026
11/11
9. Accordingly, we are not inclined to grant the relief
sought by the appellant and the Letters Patent Appeal stands
dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Neha/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…