Legal Review and Analysis of Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs State of Jharkhand & Ors 2025 INSC 1445
Case Synopsis
Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025 INSC 1445)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court reinforced that pay parity for similarly recruited employees is a fundamental right under Article 14. It held that judicial orders for such parity, passed before state reorganization, bind the successor state under specific statutory provisions, and claims for rectifying pay anomalies constitute a continuing cause of action, impervious to charges of delay.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1445 (Civil Appeal No. 14046 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Judgment: 16th December 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections Presented in the Judgment
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950: Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary discrimination. Forms the bedrock of the judgment on pay parity.
Section 34 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000: Particularly sub-section (4), which provides that orders passed by the Patna High Court before the state's bifurcation shall, for all purposes, also have effect as orders of the High Court of Jharkhand.
Precedents on Pay Anomalies & Continuing Wrong:
M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628: Established that a claim for correct pay fixation is a continuing cause of action, recurring with every salary payment.
Suprita Chandel v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664): Held that once a declaration of law is made in favour of one citizen, similarly situated persons must be extended the same benefit without needing to approach the court individually.Precedents on Judicial Discipline:
Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary (2024) 3 SCC 224: Reiterated that a coordinate bench must respect a prior decision of equal strength and can only refer it to a larger bench if it wishes to take a different view.
3. Basic Details of the Judgment
Facts of the Case:
In 1981, the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board conducted a common competitive examination for 16 graduate-level non-gazetted posts, including Industries Extension Officer (IEO).
The Appellant was appointed as IEO in 1992 in the pay scale of ₹1400-2600. An anomaly arose where 10 out of the 16 posts were placed in a higher revised pay scale, while 6 posts (including IEO) were placed in a lower scale, despite the common recruitment source.
The Patna High Court, in Nagendra Sahani v. State of Bihar (1993), declared this disparity illegal and directed that all 16 posts be placed in the higher scale of ₹1600-2780 from 01.01.1986, extending the benefit to similarly situated persons who did not approach the court.
Post the bifurcation of Bihar in 2000, the Appellant's services were allocated to Jharkhand. His representations for pay parity were rejected in 2004.
The Jharkhand High Court's Single Judge allowed his writ petition in 2011, applying the Nagendra Sahani judgment. However, the Division Bench set aside this order in 2022, citing inordinate delay, potential "cascading effect," and that the Patna HC judgment had only "persuasive value."
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Appellant, appointed through a common recruitment process, is entitled to the removal of pay anomaly and parity in pay scale from his date of appointment.
Whether the judgment of the Patna High Court in Nagendra Sahani was binding on the State of Jharkhand for an employee allocated to it post-reorganization.
Whether the Appellant's writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
Binding Nature of Pre-Reorganization Judgments: The Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, the Nagendra Sahani judgment must be treated as an order of the Jharkhand High Court itself. Therefore, it was a binding precedent, not merely of persuasive value. The Division Bench erred in ignoring it; its only recourse was to follow it or refer it to a larger bench.
Continuing Cause of Action: Relying on M.R. Gupta, the Court held that a claim for pay parity and correction of an anomaly is a continuing wrong. Each month the employee receives a lower salary constitutes a fresh cause of action. Hence, the plea of delay and laches was unsustainable.
Constitutional Mandate of Equality: The Court emphasized that Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination between similarly situated persons. Since the Appellant was selected through the same exam and his department allocation was purely administrative, denying him the benefit already granted to his peers was unconstitutional. Financial or administrative inconvenience cannot override this fundamental right.
Benefit to Similarly Situated Persons: Citing Suprita Chandel, the Court reaffirmed that once a judicial declaration is made in favour of a class, all identically placed persons must receive the benefit without the need for individual litigation.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: The Imperative of Pay Parity: State Reorganization and Judicial Precedents
Main Issue & Supreme Court's Address
The core issue was whether a judicial mandate for pay parity, passed by the High Court of a parent state, survives and binds the successor state after reorganization, and whether such claims can be defeated by allegations of delay.
Judicial Analysis and Rationale:
The Supreme Court's analysis was built on three interconnected pillars:
Statutory Continuity of Judicial Orders: The Court gave a definitive interpretation to Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. This was identified as the linchpin of the case. The provision is a statutory fiction designed to ensure legal continuity and prevent a vacuum. By deeming Patna High Court orders as those of the Jharkhand High Court, the legislature intended that rights crystallized by judicial orders would travel with the employees to the new state. This negated the Division Bench's primary reasoning that the Nagendra Sahani judgment was not binding.
The Nature of Pay Anomaly as a Perpetual Wrong: The Court drew a clear line between a one-time wrongful action and a continuing wrong. A pay scale anomaly is not a single past event but a recurring injustice that manifests with every salary slip. This legal characterization completely dismantles the defence of delay (laches). An employee cannot be said to be "sleeping over rights" that are being actively denied each month. The Court held that the cause of action renews continually, making the petition timely.
Equality as a Non-Negotiable Constitutional Edict: The judgment places the State's duty as a model employer and the right to equality under Article 14 above administrative expediency. The Court firmly rejected the "cascading effect" argument, stating that the financial implications of rectifying a state-made anomaly cannot be a valid ground to perpetuate discrimination. If the state creates a class through common recruitment, it must treat that class equally. The recommendations of various pay committees acknowledging the anomaly only fortified this constitutional obligation.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court Division Bench dated 30.03.2022 and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.12.2011. The Respondent-State was directed to revise the Appellant's pay scale to the higher scale of ₹1600-2780 from the date of his appointment (27.05.1992) and pay the consequent arrears within three months. Costs were also awarded to the Appellant.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs State of Jharkhand, what is the legal effect of a judgment passed by the Patna High Court (before 2000) on the State of Jharkhand, concerning an employee allocated to it post-reorganization?
A. It has only persuasive value and can be disregarded.
B. It is not applicable as it was against a different state.
C. By virtue of Section 34(4) of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, it must be treated as a binding order of the Jharkhand High Court itself.
D. It applies only if the employee files a fresh lawsuit in Jharkhand.
Question 2: The Supreme Court rejected the plea of delay and laches against the appellant's claim for pay parity primarily based on which legal principle?
A. The appellant had filed several representations.
B. The claim for correct pay fixation is a "continuing wrong" and the cause of action recurs every time salary is paid.
C. The state did not raise the delay objection in its first affidavit.
D. The appellant was unaware of his rights until recently.