JUDGEMENT 1. Counter affidavits and rejoinder thereto have been filed, with consent of parties, these writ applications are being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. These cases amply demonstrate that Universities instead of generating academics, generates more litigation uselessly. In all these cases, the dispute is with regard to pay fixation of Readers. 3. It appears that the facts are not in dispute. The question is in relation to deliberate or otherwise confusion as created by the University Authorities and the State Auditors. It appears that State Government took a conscious decision to implement the UGC pay package in respect of University Teachers, as had been set by Ministry of Human Resources, Central Government with effect from 1.1.1996. The Central Government itself had fixed the date for implementation of the said pay revision. 4. Consequent to the decision of the State Government to adopt the said, the Universities set up their Pay Revision Committees. These are statutory committees, which are to look into the matter and fix pay-scale accordingly. The three cases deal with Patna University and the rest three cases deal with T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. The facts start from the letter dated 6th November, 1998 of the Government of India in the Department of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) as addressed to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi with copies marked to inter alia all Education Secretaries of all the State Governments. The said letter is Annexure-2 to C.W.J.C. No. 10027 of 2010. The said letter is in respect of revision of pay scales of Teachers in Central University following the revision of pay-scales of Central Government employees on recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The relevant part thereof, is quoted hereunder: "........The fixation of pay of Lecturers (Selection Grade)/Readers in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,700-125-4,950-150-5,700/- who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturer, (Selection Grade)/Readers as on 1.1.1996, will be made in manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs.14,940/- in the revised scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300 as and when they complete five years in the grade..." 6. The State Government accepted the said recommendation and also decided to implement the same also with effect from 1.1.1996. The State Government accepted the said recommendation and also decided to implement the same also with effect from 1.1.1996. This would be evident from letter dated 20th July, 2001 of the State Government in the Department of Higher Education, which is Annexure-1 to the said writ petition. This letter specifically refers to the letter of the Central Government dated 6.11.1998, as quoted above. It clearly states that the pay revision would be effective from 1.1.1996. It appears that there were some confusions with regard to this fixation of minimum pay-scale of Rs. 14,940/-. The confusion was, what is the period of five years and when it would start. The Central Government clarified the same by its letter dated 24th March, 1999, which is part of Annexure-7 in the said writ petition. The relevant part whereof is quoted hereunder: SI No. Point of doubt Clarification 2. How the pay of Readers/ Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were in position as on 1.1.96 but did not have five years of service in the grade as on 1.1.96 is to be regulated. In case of Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were in position as on 1.1.96 but did not have five years of service in the grade as on 1.1.96, the pay may be stepped up to the stage of 14,940 on completion of five years of service in the grade if the pay otherwise admissible in terms of CCS (RP) Rules, 1997 is less than the stage of Rs. 14,940/- ..... 7. It may be noted that this letter was sent to all the Education Secretaries all over the country as also to the Registrar of all the Universities in India. In my view, the import of these provisions are clear and unambiguous and, did not involve any confusion unless someone wanted to create one, so did the statutory Pay Fixation Committee, have no confusions about it. Upon the matter being referred to the statutory committee, they looked into the matter wherever they found that the pay fixation, as notified by the Pay Fixation Committee, would show that they took a conscious decision in the matter in respect of some of the Readers. Their pay was fixed at Rs. 14,940/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and in respect of several others from different dates in subsequent years. In respect of Dr. Their pay was fixed at Rs. 14,940/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and in respect of several others from different dates in subsequent years. In respect of Dr. B.K.Pandey of the Department of Statistics, Patna University, he was granted the minimum pay of Rs. 14,940/- with effect from 15.1.1998 i.e. five years after his promotion as a Reader with effect from 15.1.1993. A reference to Annexure-6 to the C.W.J.C. No. 10027 of 2010 would show that another Dr. B.K. Pandey of the Department of Botany, who was promoted to the post of Reader on 30.7.1987, was granted this pay with effect from 1.1.1996. Similarly, if we take the case of Dr. Renuka Shrivastawa of the Department of Philosophy, she was granted this pay of Rs. 14,940/- with effect from 3.3.2000, because her date of promotion was reckoned on 3.3.1995. Thus, it would be seen that the Pay Fixation Committee read the circular plainly and without its and buts. It considered that the pay had to be stepped up to Rs. 14,940/- upon a persons completing five years as a Reader. In plain and simple word, if five years were completed prior to 1.1.1996, as on 1.1.1996 his minimum pay would be Rs. 14,940/-. If on 1.1.1996 he had not completed five years, upon completion of five years from the date of promotion, he would get the minimum pay. This is the fact as evident from the clarification given by the Central Government, as noted above. But, someone in the State and in the University suddenly got a brilliant brain wave to generate litigation. The stand is that when the State Government adopted the pay revision recommendation, it so adopted from 1.1.1996 and, that being so, everything would come to light only after 1.1.1996, as if the date was chosen by the State Government on its own. I feel sorry for the time wasted because of this wasteful stand. Firstly, 1.1.1996 is not a date chosen by the State, it was the date chosen by the Central Government itself. State decided to adopt the entire package commonly referred to the UGC Package and the date has accordingly come upon the State. The ultimate decision was taken by the State in the year 2001, but was made effective co-terminus with the Central Government on 1.1.1996. Thus, 1.1.1996 is not a magic figure invented by the State. 8. State decided to adopt the entire package commonly referred to the UGC Package and the date has accordingly come upon the State. The ultimate decision was taken by the State in the year 2001, but was made effective co-terminus with the Central Government on 1.1.1996. Thus, 1.1.1996 is not a magic figure invented by the State. 8. Now, coming to the stand of the University and the State and foremost the State Auditors. They say that the packages to be implemented from 1.1.1996 and, five years have to be completed from 1.1.1996 and, thus, in their view no person can get this minimum pay-scale of Rs. 14,940/- prior to 1.1.2001, absurdity at large on the face of it. I am sure that the clarification issued by the Central Government was also received in the State and the Universities. If at all, there was any confusion earlier, the confusions are stood remedied. In one of the counter affidavits reference has been made to another letter of the Central Government being letter dated 18.10.2002, this is the Annexure-3 in C.W.J.C. No. 8244 of 2010. The relevant paragraph of Annexure-3 is quoted hereunder: "......The fixation of the pay of the Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Readers under the MPS in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3,000-5,000 who were selected strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the UGC and who were in position as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Readers as on 1.1.96, will be made in a manner that they get their pay fixed at the minimum of Rs.14,940/- in the revised scale of Rs. 12,000-420-t8,300/- as and when they complete 5 years in the grade/scale of Rs. 12,000-18,300/-." 9. Here, someone again has picked up a third but great confusion. If one refers to above quoted paragraph in the last line it is written "they complete 5 years in the grade/scale of Rs. 12000-18300". It is absolutely clear, if one reads the above portion of the same paragraph and earlier clarifications and the original letter, all they mean to say is, when they have completed five years in the grade, the scale referred is the revised pay-scale and does not create any confusion, if one does not want to be confused. 10. Thus, looking at all these clarifications, it is clear that the Pay Revision Committee was correct. It was a statutory committee. The State Auditors could not have sat over its decision. 10. Thus, looking at all these clarifications, it is clear that the Pay Revision Committee was correct. It was a statutory committee. The State Auditors could not have sat over its decision. If it had any reservation about it, it was open to the Auditors to make a reference to the Pay Revision Committee and only after the Pay Revision Committee, which has been repeatedly held to be a statutory body, met, discussed and decided, could the same be implemented for its simple principle of law that a statutory notification issued by a statutory body can only be altered by the statutory authority by issuance of a statutory notification and not by mere Auditors objection or State Government directives? Thus, merely on basis of audit objection neither State could direct the Universities nor the Universities could act thereupon, much less, to the detriment of the petitioners. 11. In my view, there being no confusion in the matter, except the confusion in the minds of the State Auditors, which was unfounded and baseless. The entire controversy generated and hoards of Lecturers being troubled with reduction of pay and recovery of money from them is a wasteful exercise. Fixation of pay by the Pay Revision Committee, as notified, is originally correct and no correction is needed. The payments made in accordance therewith are correct and no recovery is called for. 12. In that view of the matter, all the writ petitions are allowed and Universities are restrained from interfering with the pay-scales, as fixed by the Pay Revision Committee, in any manner and wherever payments have been withheld on this count, within fortnight from today, payments will be made.