Subrata Moulik vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 9 August, 2010

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CWJC No.5775 of 2007
Haripada Ghosh, Son of late Upendra Chandra Ghosh, C/o Hemant
Kumar Roy, G.C. Banerjee Road, Bhikanpur, P.S. Kotwali, Thana,
District Bhagalpur.
                                               ---------- Petitioner
                                Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher
   Education, Human Resources Department, Patna Secretariat,
   Patna.
2. T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through Registrar, T.M.
   Bhaglapur University, Bhagalpur.
3. Vice Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
                                              ---------- Respondents
                                 With
                        CWJC No.5808 of 2007
Subrata Moulik, Son of late Sudhindra Kuma Moulik, present
residence, 7, Old Bank Colony, Adampur, Bhagalpur, P.S. Adampur,
District Bhagalpur.
                                               ---------- Petitioner
                                Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary cum Commissioner, Higher
   Education, Human Resources Department, Patna Secretariat,
   Patna.
2. T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through Registrar, T.M.
   Bhaglapur University, Bhagalpur.
3. Vice Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
                                               ----------Respondents
                              ----------

2 09.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the

petitioner and counsel for the University as

also counsel for the State in both the cases.

The prayer of the petitioner in both

the writ applications, being similar, reads

as follows:-

“1. That this is an application for the
issuance of an appropriate writ,
order or direction to the
respondents to fix the pay of the
petitioner correctly from the date
when new pay scale came into force
on 01.01.1996 and also to correct
2

the wrong reduction of his pay
scale from March 2000 to 8.10.2003
for about 2700/- each month which
was corrected by the respondent
University on 8-10-2003 resulting
in arrears for the unpaid period.”

Learned counsel for the petitioners,

with reference to the aforementioned prayer,

however, would draw attention of this Court

towards the facts stated in Annexure-2, a

representation dated 10.4.2006 filed by the

petitioner of both the cases to the Vice

Chancellor of the University as with regard

to the anomaly in the pay fixation after the

pay revision effected by the State Government

in the year 2006. Let it be noted that in the

said representation, the grievance of the

petitioners is confined to re-fixation of

their pay earlier being drawn by them in the

pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3330/- and its revision

to the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in place

of Rs. 6500-10500/- whereas in the prayer

portion, whatever has been stated is for re-

fixation of their pay from 1.1.1996.

Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is

at variance from the demand made by them in

their representation filed before the
3

Registrar of the University.

This Court, would, therefore, make

it clear that if the grievance of the

petitioners is with regard to pay fixation

from 1.1.1996, the writ application having

been filed on 2.5.2007, the same will not be

maintainable but if the grievance of the

petitioners is confined to pay fixation of

the year 2006 as appears from reading of

Annexure-2, the copy of the representation

filed by the petitioners on 10.4.2006, in

that case the State Government and the

University will be under obligation to

consider the said grievance of the

petitioners confined to the alleged anomaly

in pay fixation of the petitioners in the

pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in place of Rs.

6500-10500/-.

As there is no counter affidavit by

either the State Government or the

University, this Court would remit the matter

back to the University, which in the event

would find that the petitioners are assailing

the Government decision with regard to the

grant of pay-scale, it would forward the
4

claim of the petitioners to the Director,

Higher Education for taking appropriate

decision. Such exercise, however, by either

of the respondents with regard to taking a

final decision confined to the petitioners

being placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-

10500/- in place of Rs. 5000-8000/-, will be

taken within a period of six months from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this

order and the petitioners will be entitled

for any arrear only from the date of filing

of the writ application i.e. 2.5.2007.

Let it be made clear that this

Court, however, has not decided the merit of

the claim of the petitioners and has only

remitted the matter back to the authorities

to take appropriate decision in accordance

with law.

With the aforementioned observation

and direction, both of these writ applicants

are disposed of.

Rsh                                       (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)