IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2513 of 2004
LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, son of Late Gurusevi Sharma, resident of
village + P. O. + P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi, at present posted as Routine
Clerk in M.K.S. College, Trimuhan Chandauna, Darbhanga.
... Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its
Vice-Chancellor.
5. The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga.
6. The Finance Controller-cum- Finance Officer, Lalit Narain Mithila
University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga...
7. The Principal, M. K. S. College, Trimuhan, Chandauna, Darbhanga.
.. Respondents.
-----------
3. 16.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the
State as also counsel for the University.
The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition
reads as follows:-
“(a) For quashing the letter bearing
Memo No. 8330-34/C dated 28.6.2002 issued
by Respondent no. 5 by which the pay
fixation of the petitioner has been made in the
pay scale of Rs.975 to 1540 with effect from
7.1.1994 without considering the objection of
the petitioner and for quashing vide letter No.
8122-65/2126 dated 8.7.2000 by which the
pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in the
scale of Rs.975-1540.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate
-2-
writ commanding the respondents for
payment of salary of the petitioner in the pay
scale of rS.1500-2750 on the basis of Vth. Pay
Revision replacement scale of rs.785-1210 in
which scale the petitioner was appointed and
consider his case for adjustment on the
sanctioned vacant post of office Assistant on
which post, he is working since his initial
appointment and he holds full qualification
for the same.
(C) For directing the respondents in
the alternative to fix his pay in the scale of
Rs.1200 to 1800 from the date of his
appointment on the compassionate ground if
Govt. letter No. 14/M/1-0202/94-1326
(Annexure-11) dated 21.8.1995 is found to be
applicable in the case of petitioner.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that true it is that the petitioner was appointed on
compassionate ground on the post of routine clerk by the
University but then there has been an apparent anomaly by
way of pay fixation when the 5th Pay Revision Committee
report was sought to be implemented by the University. He
would explain that the petitioner was drawing his salary in
the pay scale of Rs.785-1210 but in the revised pay scale his
salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.975-1540. According
to counsel for the petitioner this was revised pay scale of Rs.
535-765/- and the petitioner was entitled for revision of his
salary in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750/-.
-3-
The issue, in fact, was quite simple inasmuch as all
that was to be seen as to what the Government notification
had provided while fixing pay-scale of the post of routine
clerk which was earlier being paid salary in the pay scale of
Rs.785-1210. This job could have been done either by the
State Government or by the University or by both by
providing the notification in their counter affidavit but then
such has been no longer the practice because this writ
petition after being filed on 25.2.2004 and despite order
dated 18.1.2006 is still awaiting the filing of the counter
affidavit. It has taken four years for this case to have its turn
again and now when this case has been placed for final
disposal in the year 2010 there is again same usual prayer of
adjourning the case for enabling the respondents to file
counter affidavit. This can no longer be continued much less
allowed.
This Court, therefore, would direct both the State
Government and the University to consider the grievance of
the petitioner and pass a reasoned order with regard to
entitlement of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of
Rs.1500-2750/-. It is made clear that the petitioner will be
-4-
only entitled for payment of the pay scale of post of
Routine Clerk as was revised by the State Government for
the university employees from time to time. The
petitioner,however, would not be given any higher scale of
pay because the Principal of the College had chosen to take
some work of post of accountant, cashier or Assistant from
the petitoner. The petitioner’s right therefore would only
flow from his order of appointment which as noted above,
has been made on the post of routine clerk.
While deciding the case of the petitioner, the
University and the Government must examine the plea of
the petitioner that in other Universities Routine Clerks have
already been given the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750 or none
has been subjected to same fixation of pay to which the
petitioner or other Routine Clerks by virtue of being an
employee of Lalit Narain Mithila University was fixed in
the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/-.
In order to expedite the matter, this Court would
give liberty to the petitioner to file his self-contained
representation addressed to the Registrar of Lalit Narain
Mithila University and the Registrar on receipt of such
-5-
representation will examine the case of the petitioner and if
he finds that anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioner
was on account of fault on the part of the University
officials, he would direct for its correction, but then if he
would find that the petitioner’s pay scale of Rs.975-1540/-
was in consonance with the government decision, he would
refer the case of the petitioner with his comments to the
Director Higher Education who then would take a final
decision keeping in view the practice which has been
followed in other universities. It would be however open for
the Director, Higher Education to either grant the petitioner
the same pay-scale which is being given to the counter part
Routine Clerks in the other Universities or reduce the pay
scale of all the Routine Clerk given higher pay-scale despite
the government notification of paying the salary of the post
of routine clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.975 to 1540 w.e.f.
1.1.1986. A clear decision in the case of the petitioner either
by the University or by the State Government or by both of
them must be taken strictly in accordance with law within a
period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
-6-
In the event, the petitioner is found entitled to
monetary benefit; the payment thereof must also be paid to
him in next three months from passing of such order. If the
respondents come to a conclusion that pay fixation of the
petitioner was correct, they would be required to pass a
reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner.
With the aforementioned observations and
directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)