Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1089 (PAT)

Kauleshwar Prasad Ambastha v. Rau

2001-12-05

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners having common cause of action have approached this Court by these writ applications and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The reliefs sought for by these writ petitioners substantially are for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order no. 206/EH/RAU dated 12.3.1999 and notification dated 25.6.1998, issued by the respondent University and the State of Bihar, whereby and whereunder upgraded pay scales of Rs. 730-1080 with effect from 1.3.1982, Rs. 785-1210 with effect from 1.4.1987 and Rs. 1500-2750 with effect from 1.1.1986 granted to Clerk/Head Clerk/Accountant/ Clerk-cum-Typist of the constituent unit of the respondent University are being sought to be cancelled and steps have been directed to be taken for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners. 4. Short facts giving rise to these applications are as follows :- The writ petitioners are ministerial staffs (Clerks, Head Clerks, Accountants/ Clerk-cum-Typist) under the respondent University and while they were in service their pay scale was upgraded from time to time and now by the impugned notifications, the upgraded pay scales are being reduced/cancelled. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the pay scales, which were upgraded and given to the petitioners now cannot be cancelled, as the upgraded pay scales were given as per the decision of the Syndicate and the Board of Management at par with the assistants of University headquarters and no differentiation is permissible with the assistants of the University headquarters and that of Mofussil unit of the University. It is also submitted that the upgraded pay scales were made available to the petitioners and others under valid order of the University and the Board of Management under the then statutory provisions and as such, a right had accrued to the petitioners and the same could not have been taken away without affording them an opportunity of being heard. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the pay scales, which were upgraded in the case of the petitioners, have also been made available to similarly situated employees of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, but their pay scales are not being reduced and. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the pay scales, which were upgraded in the case of the petitioners, have also been made available to similarly situated employees of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, but their pay scales are not being reduced and. the petitioners are being discriminated, although the Rajendra Agricultural University and Bihar (sic Birsa?) Agricultural University both are governed by the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987 and the service conditions of the employees of both the Universities are one and the same. Lastly, it is submitted that the salaries, which were upgraded and paid to the petitioners now is not recoverable with retrospective effect, as the law of equity stops them from doing so. 6. Two sets of counter affidavits have been filedone on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4, the Rajendra Agricultural University and its officers and the another on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6, the State of Bihar. 7. In the counter counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 precisely it is stated that though a decision was taken by the Syndicate of the University in its meetings dated 4.9.1982 and 17.3.1991 upgrading the pay scale of the ministerial staffs, but the same was made applicable subject to approval of the State Government, as the State Government is the authority under the provisions as contained in Section 25(ii) of the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") and the proposal of the University, however, subsequently was rejected by the State Government vide Memo no. 465 dated 13.5.1997, and, accordingly, the benefit of upgraded scale already given to them is being sought to be taken away. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6, it is stated that the Agricultural Production Commissioner while considering the direction of this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2187 of 1987 (Baleshwar Prasad and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) has already taken a decision not to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioners, and, secondly, the action of the respondent University in upgrading the pay scale of the petitioners was unauthorised and without jurisdiction, as any financial liability cannot be created by the University without prior sanction of the State of Bihar as required under section 25(ii) of the Act. 9. 9. From the pleadings of the petitioners, it is manifest that the petitioners have prayed for firstly, for implementation of the decisions taken by the University, as referred to above, upgrading, their pay scales, and for quashing of the decision taken by the Agricultural Production Commissioner, Government of Bihar cancelling the decision of the Syndicate of the respondent University, and secondly they want parity with the pay scale of the similarly situated staff of the Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi. It is manifest from the materials on record that the upgraded pay scales, which have been prayed to be implemented, are being made available to the similarly situated staffs of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi. It further appears that the Syndicate of the University wanted to bring a uniformed scale for the ministerial staff working at the headquarters and in the field of the University, but, ultimately, the same was not sanctioned by the State Government. 10. The Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987 is uniformally applicable to Rajendra Agricultural University and Birsa Agricultural University. The Preamble of the Act reads as follows:- TO MAKE SUITABLE PROVISIONS FOR ENFORCING UNIFORM STANDARDS OF TEACHING, RESEARCH AND EXTENSION EDUCATION IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE IN THE TWO AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR NAMELY, THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND THE BIRSA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, AS ALSO. FOR HAVING UNIFORMITY IN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND IN SERVICE CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE SAID UNIVERSITIES. 11. From the Preamble of the Act, it appears that this Act is applicable to Rajendra Agricultural University, and also to Birsa Agricultural University, both for maintaining standards of teaching and financial management and service conditions of the employees of the said Universities. 12. In the writ applications, it is categorically stated that the pay scales, which were upgraded in the case of the petitioners, have also been made available to similarly situated employees of Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, but their pay scales are not being reduced and the petitioners are being discriminated. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent University as also the State do not controvert this statement made by the writ petitioners. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent University as also the State do not controvert this statement made by the writ petitioners. The Preamble of the Act, as noticed above, applies uniformaily to both these Universities, both for teaching standard as also for financial management and service conditions of the employees of the Universities and now it is not undertstandable as to why the petitioners, who are ministerial staffs/clerks of Rajendra Agricultural University, are being discriminated, so far the upgraded pay scales are concerned. The decision taken by the respondent Agricultural Production Commissioner, is also silent on this point and when these writ applications were filed, the Act of 1987 was very well applicable to both these Universities. 13. The decision taken by the Syndicate of the respondent University appears to be based on sound policy to maintain uniformity in the pay scales of the ministerial staff working at the headquarters and also in the field. It is true that the decision of the Syndicate, so far financial liabilities are concerned, is subject to approval of the State Government, as required under section 25(ii) of the Act, but, at the same time, the State Government was duty bound to consider the question of discrimination, as raised by the petitioners and decision, accordingly, could have been taken upon the proposal of the Syndicate. From the pleadings for the parties, it appears to be a glaring case of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. The action of the State authority, in that view of the matter, must be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. 15. In the result, these writ applications are allowed and order no. 206/EH/RAU dated 12.3.1999 and notification dated 25.6.1998, issued by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Agricultural Production Commissioner to consider the matter afresh for implementation of the upgraded pay scales, so far the similarly situated persons are concerned and to take a decision in this regard in accordance with law in light of the directions aforesaid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, Till an appropriate decision is taken in the matter by the respondent Agricultural Production Commissioner, excess amount paid to the petitioners shall not be recovered from them. 16. No order as to costs.