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
2the 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.)