Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 72 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar

1994-02-23

S.B.SINHA, S.K.SINGH

body1994
Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.11.1990 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby the Principal, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College, (Respondent No.2) cancelled the higher scale of pay granted to the petitioner as also for quashing the office order dated 7.5.1991 as contained in Annexure-2 thereto whereby direction has been given for recovery of the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner joined the services when the Medical College was being managed by a private governing body in the post of Artist cum-Modellor on 12.3.1974 (Annexure-9). It is alleged that at that time the petitioner was drawing salary in the scale of pay of Rs.535-765. 3. Admittedly the Fourth Pay Revision Committee submitted its report and its recommendations were accepted by the State of Bihar with effect from 1.4.1981. 4. Admittedly the matter was referred to the anomaly committee which recommended grant of a lower scale of pay to the petitioner. 5. It is stated that the said decision of the State Government was a subject matter of an application before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated 22.2.1990, in the light of the judgment of the said Tribunal, the State sanctioned the scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- to the Artists-cum-Modellor and pursuant thereto by an order dated 28.6.1990 the said scale of pay was made applicable to the case of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.1981. 6. By reason of the impugned order dated 28.11.1990 the scale of pay in relation to the petitioner was reduced and the alleged excess amount paid to t he petitioner was directed to be recovered by reason of the aforementioned order dated 7.5.1991. 7. It is stated that the petitioner as also the Union have filed several representations which are contained in Annexures 5 & 6 to the writ application. It has been submitted that the Sharda Prasad Devi as also Sri Dewan Jha have been given scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- 8. Mr. 7. It is stated that the petitioner as also the Union have filed several representations which are contained in Annexures 5 & 6 to the writ application. It has been submitted that the Sharda Prasad Devi as also Sri Dewan Jha have been given scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- 8. Mr. S.K. Katiyar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that in terms of the policy decision of the State itself the petitioner was to be placed in the scale of ray of Rs.850-1360/- and as salary on the said scale or pay had been, paid to the other employees, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be discriminated against. 9. In this case no-body has appeared on behalf of the State and despite several opportunities granted to the respondents only counter affidavit has been filed. 10. From the facts as noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that for a long period the petitioner had been paid salary in the scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/-. In this situation, in our opinion the petitioner could not have been deprived from the said benefit without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. 11. From a perusal of the order dated 4.6.1991 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it appears that allegedly it had been recorded therein that the promotion given to the petitioner by the Ex-Principal was illegal. 12. From a perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ application, it also appeals that although the petitioner is said to have been given an opportunity of making representation, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. 13. Further from a perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ application, it appears that the Stale Government had fixed the pay scale of Rs.850-1360/- pursuant to the order of the Bihar State Administrative Tribunal. It was thus, obligatory on the part of the respondent to state as to why the decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. It further appears that the representations of the petitioner have also not been disposed of. It was thus, obligatory on the part of the respondent to state as to why the decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. It further appears that the representations of the petitioner have also not been disposed of. In this situation, we have no other option but to dispose of the writ application with a direct ion to the respondent No. 2 to consider the matter afresh and cause the same to be determined by the appropriate authority upon taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact as to whether the persons similarly situated have been getting their salary in the scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- or not. 14. The representation of the petitioner should, in our opinion, be disposed of at an early date and preferably within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Till the claim of the petitioner is determined, the respondent should not recover any amount from the salary of the petitioner.