LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar Mishra & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 137Decided 5 Feb 2019
Civil Appeal Nos. 1468-69 of 2019
Justice L. Nageswara Rao · Justice M.R. Shah

Background

Employees of Bihar State Beverages Corporation, all of whom had come to the Corporation on deputation/contract from other state boards and corporations (since the Corporation made no direct recruitment of its own), were denied the benefit of the 6th Pay Revision Committee scale even though the Corporation's own Board had resolved in 2010 to grant it. Acting on Finance Department advice, the Corporation later passed a 2012 resolution limiting these employees to the pay scale of their parent organisations. The employees' writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge but allowed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, which quashed the 2012 resolution and directed the Corporation to apply "equal pay for equal work." The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, dismissing the Corporation's appeals. It held that since every employee of the Corporation, regardless of which parent body they came from, was doing the same or similar work, paying them differently based on their parent organisation's pay scale violated the principle of equal pay for equal work and Article 14. The Court also held that Rules 282-283 of the Bihar Service Code (governing deputation to "foreign service") do not cap a deputationist's pay at what they drew in their parent department; a higher rate is permissible. It further held that paying less than what was promised in the original recruitment advertisement amounted to an impermissible unilateral change in conditions of service. The Court clarified that employees get the 6th PRC scale only as long as they continue working with the Corporation; if repatriated, they revert to their parent organisation's pay scale.

Lesson Learnt

An employer cannot rely on employees' differing "parent department" pay scales to justify unequal pay for identical work performed in the same organisation, doing so breaches Article 14's equal-pay guarantee, and promises made in a recruitment advertisement cannot later be unilaterally diluted.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case