IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12394 of 2006
ARJUN PRASAD MANDAL son of Late Asharfi Mandal, resident of
village- Chandpur, post office and police station- Amdanda, District-
Bhagalpur, a retired Security Supervisor, Bihar Agriculture College Sabour,
Bhagalpur.
. Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY Bihar, through its Registrar having
its Headquarter at and post office- Pusa District- Samastipur.
2. the vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post
office- Pusa, police station- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
3. The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at
and post office pusa, District- Samastipur.
4. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post office-
Pusa, Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
5. The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar at and Post Office-
Pusa, Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur.
6. The Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at
and post office Pusa, Police Station- Pusa District- Samastipur.
7. The Associate Dean-cum-Principal Bihar Agriculture College Sabour,
Rajendra Agricultural University, Post Office and Police Station- Sabour,
District Bhagalpur.
.. Respondents.
-----------
3. 17.08.2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Upadhayay, learned counsel
for Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar.
The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition
reads as follows:-
“(I) Issuance of a writ of
Certiorari quashing the reasoned order
bearing No. 09/Legal/04/Cs/RAU, dated
16.2.2006 duly communicated through the
Associate Dean Cum Principal, Bihar
Agriculture College Sabour, Bhagalpur vide
his Memo No. 3650 dated 28.02.2006
2(Annexure-21) thereby and thereunder the
claims of the petitioner to grant the pay scale
of the post of Security Supervisor i.e. Rs.325-
525/- with effect from 18.7.1980 with its
revisions from 1.4.1981, 1.1.1986 and
1.1.1996 in terms of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay
Revisions duly accepted and implemented in
the University, has been illegally rejected
without considering the strong grounds and in
violation of the order of this Hon‟ble Court as
also the recommendation of the Selection
Committee.
(II) Issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the Respondent
University to grant the prescribed pay scale of
the post of security supervisor i.e. Rs.325-
525/- with effect from 11.07.1979 in
accordance with office order no. II-Estt-Aptt-
075/78-539 dated 18.7.1980 (Annexure-6),
with its revision to Rs.680-965/- w.e..f.
1.1.1981 vide University letter no. 334 dated
24.02.1982 (Annexure-3), Rs. 1320-2040/-
w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in terms of letter No.
III/Bud /Misc. 503/RAU dated 20.2.1990
(Annexure-4) and Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f.
1.1.1996 in terms of office order No. 571
dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure-5) with First
Time Bound Promotion on completion of 10
years of service with effect from 11.07.1989
in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. The
petitioner may also be granted further
promotions under the Assured Career
Progression scheme with effect from 9.8.1999
in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and on
completion of 24 years of service in the pay
scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from
11.7.2003.
(III) Issuance of declaration that
denial of the prescribed pay scale of the post
of Security Supervisor from the due date is
illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction
and the Reasoned order passed by the
respondent at Annexure 21 denying the pay
3
scale to the petitioner is liable to be set aside
being violation of Article 14 (doctrine of
equal pay for equal work) of the Constitution
of India as well as the order of this Hon‟ble
Court without any valid ground be declared as
void abinito.”
Though Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has addressed this Court on several
aspects, one which would really clinch the issue is the nature
of impugned order. He would submit that the petitioner had
invoked the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ on the
ground that he too was duly qualified for the post of Security
Supervisor and being an ex-serviceman equivalent to
Hawardar and he was entitled for the pay-scale which was
given to the Security Supervisor at the University
headquarters. Counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that when this Court therefore had directed the
authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner by an
order dated 30.8.2005 in CWJC No. 7805 of 2004, it was
expected that University will consider the grievance of the
petitioner with an open mind and at least briefly record the
reasons even if the claim of the petitioner was not allowed.
In this context, he has referred to the detailed representation
filed by the petitioner running into 11 full escape pages
4
wherein the petitioner had raised various facets for claiming
parity of the post of Security Supervisor at the University
Headquarter with the consequential pay-scale and has
submitted that there is no consideration to the aspects raised
by the petitioner in the impugned order.
Counsel for the University had tried to defend
the impugned order by taking a plea that the University had
always maintained quantitative and qualitative difference in
the post and pay-scale of the employees at the University
Headquarter and its constituent units and since the
appointment of the petitioner was made for the constituent
unit in a prescribed pay-scale of Rs.180-242 by keeping a
post of Class IV employee in abeyance, it was difficult for
the University to make a departure only in the case of the
petitioner for giving him the pay-scale of Security
Supervisor of the University Headquarters.
Counsel for the University has also tried to take
a plea that the qualification for the post of Security
Supervisor at the University Headquarter had not only
required an ex-army man to have held the post of Hawardar
or Subedar but also in the pay-scale of Rs.1200 to 1800/-,
5
which the petitioner was not possessing at the time of his
appointment in the constituent unit of the University.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
cryptic order passed by the Director Administration under
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the University does
not deal with the facts and specially that part of claim of the
petitioner that he was qualified and entitled for post in the
pay-scale of Security Supervisor in the University
headquarters inasmuch as a rank of signal man in the army
was equivalent to Hawaldar/Subedar.
Apart from the fact that the concept of equal pay
for equal work has to be enforced in rare of the rarest cases,
the said concept has also inherent in limitation in the eye of
law and therefore once the petitioner had undertaken to
establish that he was entitled to pay-scale of Security
Supervisor at the Headquarters Level, the authorities were at
least required to consider the grievance raised by the
petitioner in his representation in the light of settled
principle of the requirement of fulfilling the test of equal pay
for equal work. Apparently, that has not been done by the
authorities of University while passing impugned order and
6
therefore this Court has no hesitation in quashing the
impugned order as contained in Annexure-1.
The impugned order as contained in Annexure-1
is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the
Vice-Chancellor of Rajendra Agriculture University who
would now reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light
of the facts stated and the grounds taken in the detailed
representation filed by the petitioner on 29.9.2005 vide
Annexure-20 to the writ petition. The Vice-Chancellor of the
University must pass his own speaking and reasoned order
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order and if he finds the
petitioner entitled for payment of higher emolument either at
par with the Security Supervisor at University Headquarters
or to any other pay-scale, the financial benefit thereof also
must be given to the petitioner by way of actual cash
component from 30.8.2005 i.e. when this Court had earlier
remitted the mater while disposing of the first writ petition
on the subject filed by the petitioner being CWJC No. 7804
of 2004. The petitioner will also be entitled for payment of
his retirement benefit in the revised pay-scale of Security
7
Supervisor, if his claim is allowed by the Vice Chancellor of
the University.
It is, however, made clear that this Court has not
put its final word on such claim of the petitioner by way of
equal pay for equal work and has only directed the Vice-
Chancellor of the University to take his independent
decision strictly in accordance with law.
Such exercise, however, must be completed by
the Vice-Chancellor of the University within a period of
three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order.
With the aforementioned observations and
direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
kanchan. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)