Sweta Chaudhary & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Watershed Development Team under the Bihar Watershed Development Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘BWDS’) in the office of Soil Conservation in different blocks/districts. The designation issued to the petitioners was WDT Member – Social Mobilization and Institution Building Expert, on a monthly payment of Rs. 11,000/-. Counsel further submits that, in light of the appointment letter, the petitioners accepted their joining on the said post in the respective blocks/districts.

Counsel further submits that the petitioners continuously worked in the Watershed Development Team and used to receive their monthly emoluments as per the guidelines, which was subsequently enhanced by Letter No. 671 dated 09.12.2014 from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

Counsel further submits that, in the year 2020, the Governing Board, in its resolution dated 23.09.2020, decided to grant a 10% annual increment to the petitioners and other employees at the headquarters level, district level and Watershed Development Team level. In continuation of the decision of the Governing Body dated 23.09.2020, Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020 was issued by respondent No. 6 and, accordingly, the petitioners received the benefit of a 10% annual increment w.e.f. 01.04.2019. The said payment was made to the petitioners from 2019 to April 2022.

Counsel further submits that subsequently the said annual increment was stopped to the petitioners since May 2022. Thereafter, they made a representation on 24.09.2024 to respondent No. 7 seeking payment at the enhanced rate, i.e., annual increment at the rate of 10%. Counsel further submits that at several places, payment is being made at the enhanced rate, but the petitioners were not receiving the said payment. Thereafter, after making several representations, when the benefit of the 10% annual increment was not paid to the petitioners, they preferred the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.

Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed and, in the counter affidavit, the said Letter dated 23.11.2020 was cancelled vide Order No. 724 dated 27.11.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application challenging Memo No. 724 dated 27.11.2024 and requested that the said order be set aside and stayed by way of filing the interlocutory application, which was allowed, and the prayer for stay and setting aside of Memo No. 724 dated 27.11.2024 has been added to the main relief of the writ petition.

Counsel further submits that in paragraph No. 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is the specific stand of the State that the competent authority for wage revision of WDT members is the Development Commissioner, Bihar-cum-Chairman of the Bihar Watershed Development Society (BWDS). Counsel further submits that the decision of the Governing Body, in which the 10% increment was decided, was passed under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, BWDS, which is apparent from Annexure-P/13, Resolution No. 4.

Counsel further submits that the decision for increment was communicated by Annexure-P/3 through the office order, in which it is categorically stated that the said 10% increment in salary is applicable to WDT persons also. Counsel further submits that the said office order was issued vide Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020 by the Chief Executive Officer, BWDS (SLNA), Bihar, Patna, but Office Order No. 724 dated 27.11.2024 was issued cancelling the same by the Chief Executive Officer, BWDS (SLNA), Bihar, Patna, by virtue of the recommendation of the Committee constituted under the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, Patna.

Counsel further submits that the decision which has been taken by the Development Commissioner cannot be revoked, cancelled or reviewed by the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department, Bihar, as the post of Development Commissioner in BWDS is higher than the post of Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department.

In this background, counsel submits that the office order dated 23.11.2020 intimating the grant of 10% increment in salary be implemented with its effective date and the entire due payment be made to the petitioners, with a further prayer that Office Order, i.e., Memo No. 724 dated 27.11.2024, be set aside.

Learned counsel for the State, in response thereto, submits that the appointment letter of the petitioners is the basis of their rights. Counsel further submits that admittedly the petitioners were appointed as members of the Watershed Development Team. Counsel further submits that for the purpose of implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana, the work has to be done under a three-tier system.

Counsel further submits that in the first tier, at the highest level, the Bihar Watershed Development Society has to function and the competent authority for fixing the honorarium for the persons working for BWDS was the Governing Body of the BWDS under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar.

Counsel further submits that at the second tier, the Watershed Development Team has to function and selection has to be made by way of walk in interview, and the amount of honorarium has also been decided by the Governing Body of the BWDS under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar.

Counsel further submits that for both tiers, i.e., for the BWDS team and for the WDT team, the same Governing Body under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, has to function.

Counsel further submits that the petitioners were appointed in September 2013 and, after their appointment, the Governing Body, for consideration of the honorarium, passed a resolution on 19.09.2013, in which, vide Resolution No. 10, a decision for enhancement of honorarium from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- was proposed with effect from 01.01.2014.

Counsel further submits that the resolution dated 23.09.2020, on the basis of which the petitioners want to take the benefit, was basically a decision not for the WDT members, rather, it was only and only for the BWDS members. Counsel further submits that the resolution dated 23.09.2020 is Annexure-P/13, in which Resolution No. 4 indicates that it was decided to increase the salary by 10% with effect from 01.04.2019 for the employees of BWDS.

Counsel further submits that the said decision was communicated by the Office Order of the Chief Executive Officer, BWDS (SLNA), vide Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020, in which it was wrongly inserted that it was applicable to WDT members also. Counsel further submits that it is not correct to contend that the decision of the Development Commissioner, being the Chairman of the Governing Body, was wrong, rather, it was the communication made by the Chief Executive Officer which was wrong.

On the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that a Committee under the chairmanship of the Additional Secretary, Agriculture Department, who is lower in rank than the Development Commissioner, Chairman of BWDS, cannot review the decision, counsel submits that the decision of the Development Commissioner, BWDS, has not been corrected, rather, the order which had been wrongly interpolated by the Chief Executive Officer, BWDS, was directed to be modified, and only due to this reason the said letter dated 27.11.2024 was issued, which was subsequently challenged by the petitioners by way of filing an interlocutory application.

Counsel further submits that the said letter dated 27.11.2024 is absolutely in accordance with law and completely in consonance with the decision of the Governing Body dated 23.09.2020, wherein Resolution No. 4 categorically indicates that it is applicable to the employees of the BWDS.

In this background, counsel submits that there is no case made out by the petitioners and the wrong payment which has been made to the petitioners may be directed to be realised, which they have received from 01.04.2019 to April 2022.

In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are employees of the BWDS and the decision of the Governing Body headed by the Development Commissioner is binding upon them, and it can only be withdrawn by the Governing Body headed by the Development Commissioner.

Counsel also submits that once, by virtue of the letter issued by the Chief Executive Officer, some benefit was started and payment had been made, then stoppage of such payment without granting any opportunity is bad in law and is said to be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

Further, in response to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State submits that the question of natural justice does not arise in the present case for the reason that the letter had been issued by the official due to misconception and misinterpretation and has only been corrected. Only due to this reason, the payment was stopped for the purpose of correcting the letter, and there was no need to provide any notice, according to him.

Upon hearing the parties and after perusal of the records, the most relevant document is the appointment letter of the petitioners, which is Annexure-1 series. The post on which the petitioners were appointed has been designated as WDT (Watershed Development Team) Member, Social Mobilization and Institution Building Expert. It has also been indicated in the appointment letter that they shall have to obey the orders and rules of the PIA, BWDS, DNA, WCDC and State Government.

In Clause 12 of the Common Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects, 2008, Revised Edition, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Guidelines of 2008’) issued by the Government of India in the year 2011, the concept of the Watershed Development Team has been explained. It has been stated in the Guidelines of 2008 that the Watershed Development Team shall be set up by the Project Implementing Agency (hereinafter referred to as “PIA”). Each WDT shall have a minimum of four members, at least one of whom should be a woman. The establishment cost of the WDT, including salary, travel, etc., shall be met by the PIA by charging it to the Administrative Head of Account. The training and orientation of WDT members shall be facilitated by the WCDC. The competent authority for revision of the wages of WDT members is the Development Commissioner, Bihar-cum-Chairman of Bihar Watershed Development Society, and the Chairman of BWDS shall be the Development Commissioner.

It transpires to this Court from Annexure-H that, in the sixth meeting of the Management Committee of BWDS dated 19.09.2013, a decision was taken at the project level to increase the honorarium of selected WDT members (including the petitioners) from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- with effect from 01.01.2014, as per Agenda No. 10. The extract of Agenda No. 10 of the meeting dated 19.09.2013, held under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, Bihar-cum-Chairman, BWDC, is as follows:-

It transpires to this Court that the basis of the relief demanded by the petitioners is Annexure-P/3, which is contained in Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020. The extract of the order is as follows:-

It transpires to this Court that the said office order was issued in light of the decision taken by the Government Body of BWDS dated 23.09.2020. The said resolution has been annexed as Annexure-P/13. The extract of the resolution on the basis of which the said office order dated 23.11.2020 was issued is as follows:-

However, the said letter contained in Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020, quoted above, has been withdrawn vide Order No. 724 dated 27.11.2024. The extract of the said order is as follows:-

Upon bare perusal of the aforesaid letters, the only point which has to be decided here is whether the petitioners are WDT staff or BWDS staff.

It transpires to this Court that, in respect of WDT, the controlling authority is the Governing Body under the chairmanship of the Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar. Upon perusal of the decision taken in the meeting of the Governing Body dated 19.09.2013 vide Resolution No. 10, it transpires that enhancement of the honorarium was proposed for WDT members. However, from the resolution dated 23.09.2020, it transpires to this Court that the said resolution was only for employees of BWDS. In light of the Guidelines of 2008, the team of WDT and the team of BWDS are separate, though both have to work under the Governing Body headed by the Development Commissioner, Bihar-cum-Chairman of Bihar Watershed Development Society, and this is the real point of confusion.

Upon perusal of both the office orders dated 23.11.2020 and 27.11.2024, it transpires to this Court that both letters were issued by the Chief Executive Officer on the basis of the decisions of the Governing Body. In light of the Guidelines of 2008, it is clear to this Court that the decision of the Governing Body dated 19.09.2013 was for WDT members, whereas the decision dated 23.09.2020 of the Governing Body was for BWDS employees. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the issuance of the letter dated 27.11.2024, as BWDS employees are different from WDT members.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners, and accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed, with the observation that any benefit already granted to the petitioners or similarly situated persons by virtue of Memo No. 520 dated 23.11.2020 shall not be refunded. However, Order No. 724 dated 27.11.2024 is hereby sustained as valid by which cancellation of office order No. 520 dated 23.11.2020 has been made.