2026:JHHC:18252 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5482 of 2022 ….….. 1. Dr. Mritunjay Kumar, aged about 57 years, son of Sant Lal Rama, resident of Village Dighi Siwanpur, P.O. Dighi Siwanpur, P.S. Meharma, District Godda, Jharkhand. 2. Dr. Jamaluddin, aged about 56 years, son of Late Md. Abdul Shakoor, resident of Azim Colony, Lakhe, P.O. Korra, P.S. Mufassil, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 3. Dr. Binay Kumar Roy, aged about 55 years, son of N.K. Roy, resident of House No. 505-D, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Dr. Kinkar Kumar Mahto, aged about 56 years, son of Badal Chandra Mahto, resident of Village Lota, P.O. Lota, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Dr. Shailendra Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Ram Krishna Mahto, resident of Village Bharati, P.O. Jogipur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda, Bihar. 6.Dr. Abhimanyu Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of SarjuMahto, resident of Village Koriadih, P.O. Barsot, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 7.Dr. Jitendra Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Ramjanam Singh, resident of Chiriawan, P.O. Chiriawan, P.S. Chiriawan, District Gaya, Bihar. 8. Dr. Sanjay Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Rajendra Prasad, resident of Jagarnath Vihar, P.O. New Pundag, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 9.Dr. Asim Kumar Singh, aged about 53 years, son of Jai Ram Prasad Singh, resident of Village Gotia, P.O. Astawan, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda, Bihar. 10. Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Late Baldeo Prasad Singh, resident of Village Barohia, P.O. BhudhuChak, P.S. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. 11.Dr. Md. Latiful Kabir, aged about 54 years, son of Abdur Rauf, resident of Village Jonka, P.O. Jonka, P.S. Rajmahal, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 12. Dr. Sriniwas Mehta, aged about 57 years, son of Ram Padarath Mehta, resident of Village KoinarBera, P.O. Petarwar, P.S. Petarwar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. 13. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 56 years, son of Late Bal Kishore Singh, resident of Village Bhikhanpur, P.O. Bhikhanpur, P.S. Kotwali, Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. 14. Dr. Purnima Rani, aged about 54 years, wife of Choudhary Mahto, resident of Village Irkoo, P.O. Jamoda, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 15. Dr. Harihar Prasad, aged about 56 years, son of Ram Sagar Sah, resident of Sahu Basa, P.O. Sarkanda, P.S. Pirpaiti, District Bhagalupur, Bihar. 16. Dr. Lal Bihari Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Singhasan Bhagat, resident of Village Chakla, P.O. Nadioan, 2026:JHHC:18252 2 P.S. Andar, District Siwan, Bihar. 17. Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha, aged about 56 years, son of Late Banke Bihari Prasad, resident of Ishwar Chowk, P.O. Kathrahi, P.S. Nalanda, District Nalanda, Bihar. 18. Dr. Sailendra Kumar Thakur, aged about 59 years, son of Late Satyadeo Thakur, resident of Village Kamalpur, P.O. Punsia, P.S. Banka, District Banka, Bihar. 19. Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Sudin Prasad Singh, resident of Village Bari Kodarjana, P.O. Bari Kodarjana, P.S. Mufassil, Sahibganj, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 20.Dr. Niraj Kumar Gupta, aged about 55 years, son of Dayanand Gupta, resident of Mission Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. 21.Dr. Manoj Kumar Mani, aged about 54 years, son of Late Dina Nath Mandal, resident of Village Hajipur (Rajgaon), P.O. Mirjachowki, P.S. Mirjachowki, District Sahibganj, Jharkhand. 22.Dr. Brajesh Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Saha, resident of Village Sarai, P.O. Naya Bazar, P.S. Tatarpur, District Bhagalpur, Bihar. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at New A.G. Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. A.C. to S.C.(L&C)I Mr. Arvind Kr. Mehta, Adv C.A.V. ON: 12/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:22/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:18252 3 (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order as contained in memo no. ˕ा० िविध (वेतन पुनरीƗण) 02 / 2018 /426, dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure-08 of this writ application), issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby the claim of the petitioners to grant the actual monetary benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, w.e.f. 01.04.1997 instead of 15.11.2000, has been rejected. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant the monetary benefit of pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-, w.e.f. 01.04.1997 to the petitioners, in the same manner as has been granted to the employees of the State Government, particularly Lady Extension Officers, who have been granted notional benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actual monetary benefit released w.e.f. 01.04.1997. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release arrears of salary along with other consequential benefits to the petitioners. And/Or For the issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the officers of the Jharkhand Animal Husbandry Service, duly appointed by the Bihar Public Service Commission in the year 1994. After the re-organization and creation of the State of Jharkhand, they were allotted to the Jharkhand cadre, and the State Government extended the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision vide memo no. 3589 dated 17.12.2007, following which, the Petitioners were granted the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,5000/- w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Thereafter, the State Government issued memo no. 3686 dated 28.12.2007, whereby certain employees of the State Government viz., Lady Extension Officers; Principal, Indira 2026:JHHC:18252 4 Gandhi Prudential Girls’ School, Hazaribagh; Extension Officer; Lecturer (Untrained) of (+2) High Schools; and, Deputy Director (Research) Department of Water Resources were granted the benefits of the 5th Pay Revision, notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996, and actually from 01.04.1997; whereas no such benefits were granted to the Petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed W.P.(S) No. 5191 of 2016 which was disposed of on 05.05.2017, granting them the liberty to submit fresh representations. However, the Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, rejected them vide memo no. 3095 dated 19.09.2017, stating that the actual benefit of the pay scale cannot be granted to the petitioners in a similar way as it is granted to the Lady Extension Officers and others because in the latter case, the decision was taken by the Fitment Appellate Committee, whereas in the former case, the same was made effective by the way of policy decision of the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the same under W.P.(S) No. 7730/7738 of 2017, whereby the court remanded the matter and directed the Respondents to reconsider it vide order dated 23.08.2018. 4. Despite these developments, the Respondents issued an order contained in memo no. ˕ा0 िविध (वेतनपुनरीƗण) 02/2018/426 dated 04.06.2021, whereby it was decided that 2026:JHHC:18252 5 the actual benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- cannot be granted to the Petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.1997. Hence, this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite the Central Government fixed the minimum pay scale of entry grade Veterinary Staff having the prescribed qualifications as ₹ 8,000-13500, and the State Government made resolution complying with the 5th Pay Revision to bring the pay scale of State Government employees at par with the Central Government employees, the Petitioners were granted a pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. He further submitted that the matter regarding the fixation of the revised pay scale of Lady Extension Officers was placed before the Fitment Appellate Authority, wherein it only recommended that the pay scale be fixed at Rs. 5,000-8,000/-, and there was no role of the Committee in the grant of the revised pay scale retrospectively, i.e., before 2000 as the State Government was the final authority in deciding to grant the benefit of the revised pay scale. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the denial of the retrospective effect of the 5th Pay Revision, all the employees who joined the Animal Husbandry Services between 1994 and 2000 were bunched together in the 6th Pay Revision as per clause 8(1)A(ii) of memo no. 660 dated 28.02.2009, and 2026:JHHC:18252 6 their pay scale was fixed as Rs. 8,000/- on 01.01.2006, whereas they were entitled to the pay of Rs. 10,750/-, furthermore, those government servants who are drawing pay at two or more consecutive stages and are bunched in an existing stage, the benefit of one increment is given to them for every two stages so bunched. However, despite the Petitioners are entitled to three increments, but not a single increment is provided to them. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the approval of the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was given by the resolution no. 660 issued by the Finance Department, wherein paragraph 5 provided for the selection of options for salary fixation in case of financial upgradation as per the A.C.P. scheme between 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2008, and the employees can either opt for pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2006, or w.e.f. the date of financial upgradation in the unrevised pay scale provided under the A.C.P. He further submitted that after sanctioning of the 1st A.C.P., service records were issued to the Petitioners vide letter dated 25.02.2010, on the basis of which they selected the second option as it was more beneficial to them, however, when the revised service records were issued vide letter dated 28.06.2016 to incorporate the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- the petitioners requested to issue the pay slip based on the first 2026:JHHC:18252 7 option, which was rejected as the claim regarding the change of selected unprofitable option cannot be entertained after three months, as per the concerned rules. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioners are the employees of Animal Husbandry State Cadre services and they claim parity with that of the (1) Lady Extension Officers, (2) Principal, Indira Gandhi Residential Girls’ School, Hazaribagh, (3) Cooperative Extension Officer, Un-trained Lecturer of +2 Level High School, (4) Dy. Director (Science), Water Resource Department, in their entitlement to get the pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 01.04.1997. It appears that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5191 of 2016, and the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.05.2017, directing for representation disposal. The representation was preferred by the petitioners which stood rejected, vide order dated 19.09.2017. The matter was again agitated before this Court in W.P.(S) No.7730 of 2017, wherein, order dated 19.09.2017 was put to challenge. The matter was heard, and this time again, the case was disposed of, vide order dated 23.08.2018, remanding the matter to be considered by a High-Power Committee. 2026:JHHC:18252 8 Thereafter, the present impugned order, dated 04.06.2021 has been passed, under the signature of Secretary to the Govt., Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Govt. of Jharkhand. This order has been put to challenge in the present writ application. It further appears that at present, 8000-13500 pay-scale is being granted to the petitioners, notionally w.e.f. 15.01.2000 and actually w.e.f. 01.03.2007. Therefore, their limited request is to shift the date of applicability of grant of the pay-scale, similar to that of the lady extension officer, etc. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, dated 04.06.2021, the respondent-department, has not raised any dispute in respect to the entitlement of the petitioners, except for a very limited point that the case of Lady Extension Officer, etc., has been considered by the Fitment Appellate Committee, for release of the benefit of the demanded pay-scale, w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.04.1997, notionally and actually, respectively. In the case of the petitioners, however, there is no such decision, and a policy decision is regarded to be taken which does not exist. 10. Further, it appears that the contention of the respondent that the petitioners had been given two options to select is mis- conceived and irrelevant, inasmuch as, the second option was in context to give choice of pay fixation from the date of financial upgradation as provided in the ACP scheme, however, 2026:JHHC:18252 9 the present writ application has nothing to do with the claim of ACP to be granted in a particular scale. 11. Thus, the only objection that remains and the respondents raise is in reference to the prayer of the Petitioners is that in the case of the Lady Extension Officer, the parity is being objected only for the reason that the decision in their case has been taken in the Fitment Appellate Authority, but in the case of the petitioners, no such decision exists, as such the present case requires a policy decision on part of the State Govt. 12. However, responding to this status, the petitioners have pleaded and contended that the records revealed no such decision of the ‘Fitment Appellate Committee’, which would have fixed the date of applicability of the pay-scale of Rs.5000- 8000/-, in favour of the Lady Extension Officers, etc. 13. It further appears that the petitioners have annexed a copy of fitment appellate committee at annexure-9 and on perusal of para-11.3 and 11.4 of the fitment appellate committee report, it is clear that no applicable date of the pay- scale has been fixed, even by the fitment appellate committee. This point could not be controverted by the respondent authorities, either in the counter-affidavit or at the time of argument. 14. Further perusal of the annexure-11 discloses that earlier a resolution dated 15.02.2006 was passed, whereby, the pay- 2026:JHHC:18252 10 scale of the Lady Extension Officer, etc., was fixed and applicable date was w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Thereafter, some corrections were made and another resolution was passed on 28.12.2007, and with this resolution, the benefit of pay-scale was granted to the Lady Extension Officer, etc., and applicable date was improved notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 01.04.1997. In doing so, the respondents have explained in the counter affidavit that it was a decision of the Fitment Appellate Committee, and therefore, the State could not have opposed it. This, however, does not stand the test of the scrutiny on perusal of the report of the Fitment Appellant Committee annexed at Annexure-9. No applicable dates have been specified in the Fitment Appellate Committee report. This fact remains un-controverted in the counter affidavit. 15. In view of the fact that the only objection taken by the respondents in the impugned order as also in the counter- affidavit, is limited to the point of “Fitment Appellate Committee” and no further point has been taken, it shall be deemed that there is no other objection or point that remains in granting the relief of pay-scale as per the demanded dates, in the same manner, as has been granted to the (1) Lady Extension Officers, (2) Principal, Indira Gandhi Residential Girls’ School, Hazaribagh, (3) Cooperative Extension Officer, Un-trained Lecturer of +2 Level High School, (4) Dy. Director 2026:JHHC:18252 11 (Science), Water Resource Department. 16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the respondents have failed to justify the differential treatment given to the petitioners in comparison to the Lady Extension Officers and other similarly situated categories of employees. Consequently, the impugned order contained in Memo No. ˕ा0 िविध (वेतनपुनरीƗण) 02/2018/426 dated 04.06.2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- to the petitioners notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actually with effect from 01.04.1997, in the same manner as granted to the Lady Extension Officers and other similarly situated categories of employees. The respondents shall also calculate and release all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary and other admissible dues, within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:22 /06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 25.06.2026