Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 791 (PAT)

Jai Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-01

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Magadh University. 2. The short relief sought for in the present application is to allow the pay scale of Assistant to the petitioner in pursuance of promotion so granted to him by annexure 4 dated 27:6.81. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the order dated 25.11.98 as contained at annexure-6 issued by the State respondent wherein the pay and allowance of the petitioner has been fixed as a sorter in the library of the college in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in pursuance to his appointment as peon in the Student Common Room in the erstwhile constituent college he was promoted to the post of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 220 to 315 by the Principal of the Nalanda College at Biharsharif. 4. The petitioner was given the benefit of the revised pay scale of the Assistant in the 4th Pay Revision. Likewise in pursuance of the 5th Pay Revision vide order dated 13.4.91 of the Department of Human Resources and Development, Govt, of Bihar pay scale of the petitioner has been fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1500-2700/ The petitioner on 13.4.91 was required to discharge the work of sorter in the library of the college by the notification of the Nalanda College, Biharsharif. The State Govt then took up the matter for preparation of the budget grant for payment of salary of the employees of the Universities when his pay scale came to be fixed as of a sorter in pursuance of his being asked to do work in the college library. 5. Thus learned counsel of the petitioner submits that there was an error of record inasmuch as the substantive post of the petitioner would be that of Assistant in pursuance of the promotion as aforesaid and grant of lower pay scale to him would be an arbitrary order. Despite having filed representation against the same no further action was taken and he was compelled to file the present writ application. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The counter affidavit is cryptic and vaguely suggestive that the promotion granted to the petitioner as an Assistant would not have been proper. Despite having filed representation against the same no further action was taken and he was compelled to file the present writ application. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The counter affidavit is cryptic and vaguely suggestive that the promotion granted to the petitioner as an Assistant would not have been proper. This Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter any further for the reasons as recorded hereinafter. 7. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant, granted a pay scale of Assistant, granted 4th and 5th pay revisional scales of assistant. As of today there would be no order depriving him of his aforesaid promotion to the post of Assistant. In the aforesaid background this Court is satisfied that there would be no justification in the facts and circumstances of the case as also as the records presently stand to deny to the petitioner the claim for pay scale of Assistant. 8. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to all arrears of pay as an Assistant inclusive of the revised scales in pursuance of the order dated 27.6.1981. Let the respondents do so within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.