Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The dispute in this batch of three writ petitions relates to pay scale of the officers and staff of the Patna Regional Development Authority (in short, the Authority or PRDA) pursuant to the Fifth Pay Revision. In a nutshell as a result of impugned pay fixation vide office order no. 76/2001 dated 4.5.2001 the pay of 26 categories of posts stands reduced. The petitioners seek quashing of the impugned order and consequential reliefs. CWJC Nos. 7050 and 7051 of 2001 have been filed making individual grievance on behalf of Chief Accounts Officer and Director of the Authority while CWJC 7226/2001 has been filed on behalf of employees Association in representative capacity. 2. The case of the Association in CWJC No. 7226/2001 is that the Patna Regional Development Authority has been constituted under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Ordinance, 1974 (later replaced by Act 40/82) as successor-in-body of the Patna Improvement Trust. Section 93 (2) (a) of the Act provides for continuity of service conditions of the erstwhile employees of the Patna Improvement Trust and their transfer to the Authority. A committee was constituted to frame regulation regarding salary, allowances and other service conditions of the officers and employees of the Authority in terms of section 81 (d) of the Act corresponding to section 80 (d) of the Ordinance. The said committee framed regulation titled Patna Regional Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Service Conditions of Officers and Employees) Regulation, 1975.The said regulation was approved by the Board and the State Government too. On 24.9.81 the Authority constituted different cadres for different categories of employees. By Office Order No. 460/81 dated 16.12.81 the pay scales of different categories of employees were fixed and they were paid their salaries. In the light of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee on 12.12.90 the Authority resolved to pay salaries to its employees in accordance with the recommendations in anticipation of the approval of the State Government and the Bureau of Public Enterprises (in short,the Bureau). The officers and employees were paid salary accordingly. The Bureau vide its letter no. 538 dated 30.5.91 communicated its approval of the new pay scales with a direction that if any employee has been granted pay in excess of the revised scale the amount shall be recovered from his salary in instalment within two years. By Office order no. The officers and employees were paid salary accordingly. The Bureau vide its letter no. 538 dated 30.5.91 communicated its approval of the new pay scales with a direction that if any employee has been granted pay in excess of the revised scale the amount shall be recovered from his salary in instalment within two years. By Office order no. 204/91 dated 27.11.91 it was decided to place the letter before the Board. Thereafter, different office orders were issued and correspondences were exchanged from time to time between the Authority on the one hand and the Bureau and the Government on the other. Finally, by the impugned office order no. 76/2001 dated 4.5.2001 the revised pay scales were implemented with a direction to recover the excess amount from the concerned officers and employees. 3. It may be mentioned here that though there are 53 categories of posts in the Authority (as stated at the Bar) the said office order dated 4.5.91 relates to only 26 posts and it is in relation to them that the dispute has been raised in these writ petitions. The case of the Association is that the Bureau of Public Enterprises was constituted by the State Government under an executive order, dated 1.3.76. The functions of the Bureau are advisory in nature and it cannot supersede the statutory power of the Authority or the provisions of the Act under which the Authority has been constituted. The decision implementing the new pay scales vide office order no. 416/90 dated 12.12.90 thus cannot be modified or interfered with by the Bureau or even the State Government. 4. The petitioners of CWJC Nos. 7050 and 7051 of 2001 have made out a special case in addition to what has been stated above. The petitioner of CWJC No. 7050/ 2001 is Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority. His case is that the post of Chief Accounts Officer was created at par with Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and, therefore, he is entitled to the same scale as admissible to that post i.e. Rs. 1900-2500 after the Fifth Pay Revision and its replacement scale after the Sixth Pay Revision. His case is that the post of Chief Accounts Officer was created at par with Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and, therefore, he is entitled to the same scale as admissible to that post i.e. Rs. 1900-2500 after the Fifth Pay Revision and its replacement scale after the Sixth Pay Revision. It has been stated that at the first instance, after the post of Chief Accounts Officer was created on 27.6.75, it was decided to fill the post by borrowing an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner on deputation from the Commercial Taxes Department. Later, it was decided to borrow an officer from the office of the Accountant General. Despite several correspondences, the officer was not made available. The Authority then decided to borrow an officer from bank. This decision also did not materialise. Again it was decided to borrow a Joint Commissioner rank officer from the Commercial Taxes Department. Then decision was taken to appoint a Chartered/Cost Accountant having three years experience in private sector/public undertaking. On 25.9.86 requisition was sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission. The post was advertised vide Advt. 43/88. The petitioner applied for the post. On 9.9.88 interview was held and on 14.9.88 he was recommended for appointment. On 9.2.89 order of appointment was issued. The petitioner thus joined the post of Chief Accounts Officer in the scale of Rs. 1900-2500. 5. The petitioner of CWJC No. 7051/ 2001 is Director (Urban Planning) in the Authority. His case is similar to the petitioner of CWJC No. 7050/2001. According to him, the post of Director, Urban Planning & Architecture was created in the scale of Rs. 1340-1870 vide resolution no. 59/78 dated 1.5.78. The post is equivalent to Superintending Engineers post with the same scale i.e. Rs. 1340-1870. After the post was advertised the petitioner applied for appointment and was finally appointed on 26.3.79. By Annexure-7 on 7.6.82 he was granted the scale of Rs. 1900-2500 which was the scale of the Superintending Engineer pursuant to the Fourth Pay Revision. After the Fifth Pay Revision the Authority decided to grant the scale of Rs. 4300/5000 i.e. the same scale as Superintending Engineer in anticipation of approval of the Bureau vide office order no. 416/90 dated 12.12.90, Annexure-10. According to the petitioner, the Bureau agreed in principle to revise the pay scales of the officers and the employees. After the Fifth Pay Revision the Authority decided to grant the scale of Rs. 4300/5000 i.e. the same scale as Superintending Engineer in anticipation of approval of the Bureau vide office order no. 416/90 dated 12.12.90, Annexure-10. According to the petitioner, the Bureau agreed in principle to revise the pay scales of the officers and the employees. However, the scale of Director was downgraded to the scale admissible to Executive Engineer but the Authority continued to pay salary to the officers and employees including the petitioner as before and the decision of the Bureau was never implemented until 4.5.2001 when by the impugned office order, the pay scale was reduced to Rs. 3700-5000. 6. Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC Nos. 7050 and 7051 of 2001 submitted that the posts of Chief Accounts Officer and Director, Urban Planning having been created in the pay scale admissible to the posts of Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Superintending Engineer respectively, and the petitioners having accepted the appointment accordingly, their pay cannot be arbitrarily reduced. He submitted that neither the State Government nor the Bureau has any jurisdiction to fix the service conditions of the officers and employees of the Authority, including pay scales which power is vested in the Authority under section 81 (d) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. The Authority being statutory body, governed by the provisions of the said Act, its authority and jurisdiction cannot be undermined by the State Government or the Bureau. It was stated that though under section 44 (7) of the Act part of the fund of the Authority comes from the State Government in the shape of grant, advance or loan, since the very beginning till date, the Government has not provided any kind of financial aid to the Authority except for particular projects. No contribution has been made towards the establishment cost and, therefore, the State Government and/or the Bureau cannot usurp the power of the Authority and fix pay scales of its officers and employees. It was stated that in the past when the Authority decided to give more allowances than advised by the Bureau, the State Government took the stand that the Authority is competent to do so. It was stated that in the past when the Authority decided to give more allowances than advised by the Bureau, the State Government took the stand that the Authority is competent to do so. Similarly when the State Government wanted to reduce the pay scales of 22 categories of posts after the Fourth Pay Revision and recover the excess amount the Authority objected to such a move and its stand prevailed. 7. Shri Shreenandan Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 7226/2001 adopted the submissions of Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh and further submitted that the Bureau being merely an Advisory Body it cannot dictate terms by fixing pay scales different from corresponding pay scales of the officers and employees of the State Government pursuant to the Fifth Pay Revision. He submitted that as far as decision to recover the excess amount is concerned, it is not clear as to whether the recovery is to be made from 1.12.95 when the State Government directed the Authority to implement the pay scales fixed by the Bureau vide its (Bureau) letter no. 538 dated 30.5.91 or from 12.12.90 when the Authority implemented the new scales. 8. Shri Sidheshwari Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the Authority referred to different provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act and submitted that the control of the State Government over the affairs of the Authority is all-pervasive and, therefore, being of the view that it was/is bound by the decision or direction of the State Government, it decided to implement the pay scales fixed by the Bureau in its meeting held on 6.4.91 communicated by the State Government by letter dated 1.12.95. He submitted that once the Authority decided to accept the pay scales fixed by the Bureau/State Government the question of the nature and effect of the advice of the Bureau and direction of the State Government becomes irrelevant. 9. On behalf of the State Shri V.N. Sinha, Government Pleader No. 9, submitted that the Bureau has been constituted under a resolution of the State Government to coordinate and advise the State Government in matters relating to functioning of the public undertakings, commercial undertakings and apex cooperative institutions. The matter relating to pay fixation after the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee was considered by a committee consisting the representation of the Bureau and different undertakings/corporations separately. The matter relating to pay fixation after the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Revision Committee was considered by a committee consisting the representation of the Bureau and different undertakings/corporations separately. The matter relating to the PRDA was discussed on three days. Finally, decision was taken on 6.4.91, copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition in CWJC No. 7050/ 2001. He produced the file. He pointed out that from paragraph 3 of the minutes/decision it will appear that the Bureau resolved to pay difference of salary between the existing pay and revised pay, as personal pay to the employees of 22 categories by way of pay protection, till their retirement/promotion/death. He submitted that the decision having been taken after taking into consideration relevant facts and circumstances, this Court would not like to sit in appeal over the same in writ jurisdiction. 10. Before considering the merit of the grievance of the petitioners it would be appropriate to briefly notice the relevant provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. Section 3 of the Act vests power in the State Government to constitute an Authority to be called as Regional Development Authority bearing the name of that Region (such as Patna Regional Development Authority, Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority etc.). Section 80 confers power on the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act, without prejudice to the generality of the rule-making power, on subjects specified in section (2) thereof. Section 2 (p) defines rule (wherever it occurs in the Act) to mean a rule made under the Act by the State Government. Section 6 provides for the staff of the Authority. Under sub-section (1) thereof its Secretary is to be appointed by the State Government. Under sub-section (2), the Authority may appoint other officers and employees, as may be necessary for efficient performance of its functions but subject to such control and restrictions as may be prescribed by rules approved by the Government. Section 44(1)(a) of the Act contemplates that fund of the Authority shall comprise, inter alia, of moneys received by the Authority from the State Government by way of loans, grants, advances or otherwise. Section 44(2) of the Act provides that part of income of the State by way of Stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act shall be credited to the Authority. Section 44(2) of the Act provides that part of income of the State by way of Stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act shall be credited to the Authority. Section 44(5) provides that the fund so received by the Authority shall be applied towards meeting its expenses in the administration of the Act and for no other purposes. Section 65 lays down that the State Government may set aside any resolution of the Authority or any order of the Authority, the Chairman, the Vice Chairman or any officer of the Authority, if in the opinion of the State Government the resolution or order is in excess of the power conferred by law. Under sub-section (2) of section 65, further, the State Government may issue direction to the Authority on matters of general policy. 11. In view of the above provisions, I would agree with the counsel for the respondents that the control of the State Government being wide and pervasive it may be difficult for the Authority to take independent decision contrary to the decisions and directives of the State Government. However, I have doubt if the State Government or the Bureau, a creature of the State Government, can fix pay scales of the officers and employees of the Authority. Clause (d) of section 81 of the Act vests power in the Authority to make regulations with respect to "the salaries, allowances, gratuities and conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Authority and disciplinary matters relating to them". There is no restriction on the exercise of this regulation-making power except that the regulations must be "consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder". Though rule-making power is vested in the State Government under section 80 there is no indication that such rule-making power may extend to the framing of the service conditions or fixing salaries, allowances of the officers and employees of the Authority. If the statute vests power in the Authority to frame regulations with respect to salaries, allowances and conditions of service without any embargo on the exercise of power, I would rather agree with the counsel for the petitioners that the Authority is competent to fix the pay scales of its officers and employees. Merely because part of its fund may comprise of the grants etc. Merely because part of its fund may comprise of the grants etc. from the State Government, would not make it dependent on the Government so as to be bound by its directives regarding pay scales. The stand of the petitioners that the Government has not made any contribution towards the establishment cost of the authority has not been controverted by the respondents. 12. However, in the instant case it may not be necessary to go into the question of the competence of the Authority to fix pay scales etc. of the officers and employees vis a vis the power of the State Government or the Bureau for the reason that the Authority has silently accepted the directives of the State Government and the advice of the Bureau. This was the plain and simple stand of Shri Sidheshwari Pd. Singh when his attention was drawn to the provisions of section 81 (d) of the Act. The Authority having thus decided to obey the directives of the State Government and follow the advice of the Bureau, the question is whether the decision of the Authority requires any interference. 13. Fixing pay scales is an executive function. It is a complex exercise involving so many factors. It is well settled that while making judicial review of administrative actions the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal over the decisions of the Executive. It can only correct error in the decision-making process. Where the decision is contrary to law or based on irrelevant consideration or where relevant factors have been omitted from consideration, the Court can interfere and issue suitable direction, but it cannot say that the employees should be allowed a particular scale(s). 14. In the instant case, in view of the order that I propose to pass it is not necessary to go further into the above aspect of the matter. As indicated above, the Bureau itself decided to give amount of difference between the existing pay and the revised pay as personal pay, by way of pay protection, to employees of 22 categories of posts. It is not understandable as to why this decision should not be made applicable to other posts as well. As mentioned above, out of 53 categories of posts the dispute involved in these cases relates to only 26 categories. It is not understandable as to why this decision should not be made applicable to other posts as well. As mentioned above, out of 53 categories of posts the dispute involved in these cases relates to only 26 categories. Thus, if the Bureau or finally the State Government decided to give pay protection by paying the amount of difference between the existing pay and the revised pay to employees falling under 22 categories of posts, it would be only just and proper that the decision is made applicable to the rest of the posts. Needless to say, as already stated in para 3 of the minutes/decision dated 6.4.91, such protection will be available as personal pay to the employees concerned till retirement, promotion, or death, as the case may be. In any of these events, the benefit will automatically come to an end. 15. Otherwise also, on general principle, the pay of an employee cannot be reduced except as a disciplinary measure. Sometimes fixing pay of the employee(s) in the new revised scales brings about reduction in the pay. In such a situation, the difference is paid as personal pay. This has a statutory sanction under Rule 39 of the Bihar Service Code, which is applicable to the employees and officers of the PRDA. The rule runs as under: "39. Personal pay means pay granted to a Government servant: (a) to save him from a loss of substantive pay in respect to a permanent post other than a tenure post due to revision of or to any reduction of such substantive pay otherwise than as a disciplinary measure." It must thus be observed that the above decision of the Bureau was in accord with Rule 39 of the Service Code. There can be no justification to make any classification between employees of different categories. The file which was produced by the Government Pleader for perusal does not indicate if any special reason weighed with the Bureau in denying the benefit of personal pay/pay protection to other categories of employees and officers. 16. In the above premises, these petitioners are entitled to a declaration and direction that the benefit of the decision contained in paragraph 3 of the minutes dated 6.4.91 be made applicable to all categories of the employees and officers who have been affected by revision in the pay scales, that is, whose pay stands reduced. 16. In the above premises, these petitioners are entitled to a declaration and direction that the benefit of the decision contained in paragraph 3 of the minutes dated 6.4.91 be made applicable to all categories of the employees and officers who have been affected by revision in the pay scales, that is, whose pay stands reduced. In this view of the matter, there is no question of making any recovery from their salaries. 17. In the result, these petitions are allowed with the observations and directions made hereinabove.