Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 06 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (through its Chairman‑cum‑Managing Director), the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, the General Manager (Administration) of JUVNL, the Deputy General Manager (P & GA) of JUVNL, and the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division (West) under JUVNL. Respondent – Manoj Kejriwal, son of Late Murari Lal Kejriwal, resident of Circular Road, Ranchi.
  • Counsel: For the appellants, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate; for the respondent, Mr. Rajesh Kumar (as per record).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.323 of 2026 challenging the Single Judge’s order dated 6 December 2025 which allowed the respondent’s writ petition (W.P.(S) No.4189 of 2018).
  • Background: The dispute centered on the respondent’s post‑promotion salary. The appellant argued that after promotion the respondent’s pay scale rose from Rs 14,610 to Rs 14,940 and that three advance increments granted earlier should be treated as “special pay” and thus excluded from the basic pay calculation. The appellant relied on the decision in Ishwari Prasad Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) No. 6166 of 2008).
  • Appellants’ Submissions: (i) The increase to Rs 14,940 was improper because the three advance increments (each Rs 300) awarded as incentives for qualifying departmental examinations were not considered; (ii) The advance increments constitute special pay under Rule 42 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Service Code and should be excluded; (iii) The appellant claimed an acute financial crisis for JUVNL, seeking dismissal of the writ petition.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The Court noted that before promotion the respondent’s salary of Rs 14,610 already incorporated the three advance increments (Rs 300 each) as incentives, as admitted by the appellant in paragraph‑4 of the Single Judge’s order.

2. Upon promotion, the correct computation should be: basic pay Rs 14,610 + one regular increment of Rs 300 + grade‑pay difference of Rs 1,200 = Rs 16,110. The Single Judge’s figure of Rs 14,940 ignored the three advance increments.

3. The Court rejected the contention that the respondent’s basic pay scale increased after promotion without evidence, emphasizing that the appellant could not withdraw the advance increments without violating natural‑justice principles.

4. The decision in Ishwari Prasad Mandal was upheld; it has attained finality after dismissal of S.L.P. (C) No. 16507 of 2015, and therefore correctly supports the respondent’s case.

5. The Court observed that the three advance increments had been granted to several similarly situated employees, including Shambhu Nath Prasad (subject of LPA No.220 of 2019), indicating consistent practice.

6. The appellant’s claim of an acute financial crisis does not exempt it from the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14; discriminatory treatment of the respondent is impermissible.

7. Regarding the “special pay” argument, the Court examined Rule 42, which defines special pay as an addition for arduous duties, specific additional responsibilities, or unhealthy locality. None of these circumstances applied; hence the advance increments cannot be classified as special pay.

8. The Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s consideration of the advance increments and rejected the appellant’s arguments.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order for costs is made against either party.
  • The respondent’s entitlement to the three advance increments and the correct basic pay of Rs 16,110 is affirmed.

Topics: Judicial Decision, Public Sector Compensation