In a detailed ruling delivered in open court, the Supreme Court on Monday settled a long-running service dispute involving pay-scale parity of a Jharkhand government employee, restoring benefits that had been taken away by the High Court in appeal. The case, argued with some intensity on delay and financial impact, turned on one central question: can similarly placed employees be paid differently just because of administrative allotment?
Background
The appellant, Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, was appointed in 1992 as an Industries Extension Officer after clearing a common competitive examination conducted in the early 1980s for 16 equivalent Class-III posts across departments. While all these posts were originally on the same footing, pay revisions created a clear split-some officers were placed in a higher scale, others left behind.
This anomaly had already been examined years ago. In the famous Nagendra Sahani judgment, the Patna High Court ruled that there was no valid reason to treat these officers differently and directed grant of a higher pay scale to all. Many employees benefited. Upadhyay, however, was denied similar relief after his services were allocated to Jharkhand following the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
Though a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court ruled in his favour in 2011, that relief was later overturned by a Division Bench, citing delay and possible financial ripple effects. This led to the present appeal.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench, after walking through the service history and statutory framework, was not persuaded by the High Court’s reasoning. It noted that Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act clearly states that judgments of the Patna High Court passed before bifurcation “shall have effect” as judgments of the Jharkhand High Court as well.
“The Division Bench could not have brushed aside Nagendra Sahani as merely persuasive,” the bench observed, pointing out that judicial discipline requires following earlier binding rulings unless referred to a larger bench.
On the issue of delay, the court took a practical view. It held that pay disparity is a continuing wrong. Every month an employee draws a lower salary than his equal counterpart, a fresh cause of action arises. The bench remarked that the employee had also pursued representations before approaching court, and was not sleeping over his rights.
The judges were also unimpressed by the argument that granting relief would disturb the cadre structure. Financial inconvenience, they said in substance, cannot override constitutional equality.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the 2022 judgment of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench and restored the Single Judge’s 2011 order. The State has been directed to revise Upadhyay’s pay scale with effect from his appointment and release all consequential benefits within three months. Litigation costs were also awarded in his favour.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand & Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14046 of 2024
Case Type: Service Matter (Pay Scale Parity / Salary Anomaly)
Decision Date: 16 December 2025