JUDGEMENT 1. Having heard counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2868/2004 and the counsel for the University in both these cases this Court is of the considered opinion that normally the terms and conditions of an appointment including pay scale cannot be varied after long lapse of time. 2. The petitioner, Ashish Kumar Sinha, alongwith five other persons were appointed on the post of Computer in Comprehensive Cost of Cultivation Scheme of the Government of India in Rajendra Agricultural University on 2.6.1990 in the pay scale, of Rs. ,975-1540. Out of these six persons fourof them, namely, Ravi Shankar Sahay, Sanjay Kumar Roy, Nasim Ahmad and Lakshman Prasad, were given the higher pay scale after a period of more than 11 years under a different order of the University on the plea that four of them, who were appointed in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, were holding the qualification of B.Sc. (Maths) degree with Diploma in Computer Science and as such, they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2780 with effect from their first date of joining of the post i.e. from different dates of the month of June, 1990 itself. 3. Since the petitioner, Ashish Kumar Sinha who was also one of the six appointed on 2.6.1990 with the aforementioned four persons and also being M.Sc. (Maths) with Diploma in Computer Science had been singled out for discriminatory treatment by being not given the same benefit of higher pay scale of Rs. 1600- 2780 and its revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996 he has filed C.W.J.C. No. 2868/2004, wherein the prayer made by him reads as follows: "That this application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to give the pay scale to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1600- 2780 alongwith differences of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits with effect from 12.6.1990 i.e. the date of his appointment as admitted juniors are given the said scale." 4. 1600- 2780 alongwith differences of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits with effect from 12.6.1990 i.e. the date of his appointment as admitted juniors are given the said scale." 4. It however appears that the order dated 8th January, 2002 passed in favour of the aforementioned four persons Laxman Prasad, Ravi Shankar Sahay, Sanjay Kumar Roy and Nasim Ahmed was also not implemented and as such, they have also filed their separate writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004, with the following prayer: "That the petitioners are filing this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect to the office order O.O.No. Il/Estt, Misc. 54/01 13/RAU Pusa dated 8th January, 2002 of the Vice-Chancellor, issued under the signature of Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa by which the petitioners were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1600- 2780 w.e.f. the date of their joining and the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 after implementation of the same in Rajendra Agricultural University and also to command the respondents to pay the arrears of difference of salary from the date when it was payable in view of the abovesaid order." 5. It also appears that when the University was confronted with Catch-22 situation either allowing the financial benefit to four of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 and also giving the same benefit to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2868/ 2004, the University seems to have become wiser and it had cancelled the order dated 8.1.2002 passed in favour of the four petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 and consequently such order passed by the University during the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition dated 24.7.2009 was also assailed by them by filing an interlocutory application, LA. No. 4902/2009 and this Court by an order dated 10.9.2009 had while allowing amendment of the writ petition passed an order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: "In the I.A. No. 4902 of 2009, the petitioners have brought on record an office order of the Director, Administration of the University dated 24.7.2009 by which the office order of the then, Director, Administration dated 8.1.2002 revising pay scale of the petitioners from the date of appointment has been cancelled. There is nothing in the order to show that prior to issue of this order any notice was given to the petitioners in the matter. In the circumstances, the counter affidavit which shall be personally sworn by Director, Administration will also disclose as to why the Director, Administration has not given any notice to the petitioners prior to issue of this order cancelling the pay revision of the petitioners from initial date of appointment. Till next date of hearing of the matter the said office order dated 24.7.2009 as contained in Annexure-8 to the I.A. shall not be given effect to." 6. Though today no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to press C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 but then as the case of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2868/2004 would be squarely dependent on the outcome of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/ 2004, this Court in the interest of justice has allowed the parties to also address in respect of the relief prayed in the second writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004. 7. Dr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Rajendra Agricultural University, very fairly submitted that it would be difficult for him to support the impugned order assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004, inasmuch as such an order passed against the four petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 during the pendency of this writ application was definitely in violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact Dr. Upadhyaya could not show from his counter affidavit the specific query made by this Court as to whether such an order was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the four petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004. 8. The tenor of the order which was passed in favour of the four petitioners while granting them to higher pay scale on 8.1,2002 leaves nothing for speculation that a conscious decision was taken by the University for granting them the higher pay scale while allowing their representation and in this context it would be useful to quote the order of the University which reads as follows: "Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa-848125 (Samastipur) O.O,No.!l/Estt.Misc.-54/01:13/RAU, Pusa, the 8th January, 2002. Office Order : Consequent upon the examination of the representation submitted by the Computers in Comprehensive Cost of Cultivation Scheme for operation of Computers, which is a hundred percent centrally financed scheme under Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt, of India, namely, Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, Sri Sanjay Kumar Roy, Md. Nasim Ahmad and Sri Lakshman Prasad who are holding the B.Sc. (Math) degree with Diploma in Computer Science for enhancement of their pay scale from Rs. 975- 1540/- to Rs. 1600-2780/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 payable w.e.f. 1.4.1989 and revised Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in accordance with the scales of pay provided for the technical degree holders of B.Sc. (Math) with Diploma in Computer Science by the State Govt, in the Departments of Land and Revenue Reforms, Co-operation etc., Govt, of Bihar. After carefully consideration of the grievance of the aforesaid Computer, it has been found that the grievances are genuine. Accordingly the following employees working on Computers in Comp. Cost of Cultivation Scheme having B.Sc. (Math) degree with diploma in Computer Science are allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2780/- w.e.f. the date noted against their names i.e. the date of their joining and the revised scale after implementation in R.A.U., Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in accordance with the circular No. 11-5/70 Eco. dated 20th June, 1970 of the Ministry of Agriculture (Dept. of Agriculture, Govt, of India) issued in the context of "Terms and Conditions of the Comprehensive Cost of Cultivation Scheme" with the R.A.U. as per condition laid down in. RAU Act 25(H): s. No. Name Date of Joining 1. Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Roy, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 3. Sri Nasim Ahmad, (working in Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 4. Sri Lakshman Prasad, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 5.6.1990 By order of the V.C., Sd/-Director, Administration 9. Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Roy, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 3. Sri Nasim Ahmad, (working in Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 11.6.1990 4. Sri Lakshman Prasad, (working on Computer in C.C.C. Scheme) 5.6.1990 By order of the V.C., Sd/-Director, Administration 9. Such an order giving financial benefit to four of the petitioners on a ground that the entire expenditure was to be borne by the Central Government as it was Centrally Sponsored Scheme being carried by the University and that four of them had the necessary qualification as prescribed by the Central Government of implementing those scheme leaves nothing for speculation with the following reasons given in the impugned order by the University on 24.7.2009: " Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar Pusa. Samastipur-848125 No.II Estt/Pay Fix.3/09 465/RAU, Pusa dated, the 24.7.2009. Office Order Office Order No. II Estt./Misc. 54/01/13 and memo no. 27 dated 8.1.2002 is cancelled on the recommendation of the committee constituted to examine the Anomaly in the pay scale of the Computers as the approval of the State Government was not obtained prior to issue of the above order in accordance with the provision of Bihar Agril. Act. 1987. Section 25(II). Accordingly the following employees will draw their salary w.e.f. the date of joining on the post of Computer in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 975- 1540/- on which they were appointed and their pay will be fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- w.e.f. 1.1.J996 as per Department of Agriculture, Bihar resolution no. 3046 dated 11.7.2003. SI. No Name & Place of Posting . Designation Date of joining 1. Sri Ravi Shankar CCC Scheme Sahay, Computer RAU, Pusa 11.6.90 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Roy, Computer -do- 11.6.90 3. Sri Nasim Ahmad, Computer -do- 11.6.90 4. Sri Lakshman Prasad, Computer -do- 5.6.90 By order of the V.C. Sd/- Director, Administration 24.7.2009 (underlining for emphasis) would amount to complete U turn to the admitted facts of the same case. Sri Ravi Shankar CCC Scheme Sahay, Computer RAU, Pusa 11.6.90 2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Roy, Computer -do- 11.6.90 3. Sri Nasim Ahmad, Computer -do- 11.6.90 4. Sri Lakshman Prasad, Computer -do- 5.6.90 By order of the V.C. Sd/- Director, Administration 24.7.2009 (underlining for emphasis) would amount to complete U turn to the admitted facts of the same case. As noted above, now the plea of the University for canceling the order in favour of the four petitioners is that since approval was not obtained from the State Government for giving such financial benefit they would not be entitled for grant of the higher pay scale and consequently their all emolument supposed to be revised from 1990 itself had to be again re-fixed in a lower pay scale. 10 In the opinion of this Court, the statement of fact recorded in either of the aforesaid order must be incorrect. If the University was sanguine in its first decision taken in the year 2002 vide its order dated 8.1.2002 that the pay scale of the petitioners of the second case was fit to be revised on account of their being associated and working in a hundred percent Centrally Financed Scheme of the Central Government for which they had also the necessary qualification, the reason given by the University in the impugned order dated 24.7.2009 of the University withdrawing such benefit on the ground of there being no prior sanction of the State Government in terms of Section 25(ii) of the Bihar Agriculture University Act, 1987 seems to be definitely incorrect and in fact non est. 11. This Court, however, would not like to pre-judge the issue, inasmuch as this is an admitted position that the petitioners of the second case were given certain financial benefit of a higher pay scale by the order 8.1.2002 that too with retrospective effect i.e. from their respective date of joining in month of June 1990 and only when they had moved this Court for its full implementation or payment of consequential benefits by filing their writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 4448 of 2004 the same was sought to be unceremoniously withdrawn by an order dated 24.7.2009 without notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to them. By now it is well settled that any order causing civil and evil consequences must be not only preceded by giving show cause notice but also be backed by reasons by way of compliance of the principles of natural justice. Since there is no dispute at least on this issue that the impugned order dated 24.7.2009 was passed by the University without notice and/or affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/ 2004, this Court will have no option but to quash the order dated 24.7.2009. 12. Let it be noted that the operation of the aforesaid order dated 24.7.2009 was stayed by this Court by an interim order dated 10.9.2009, in C.W.J.C. No. 4448/ 2004 and therefore, this order would be deemed to have been never given effect to and consequently any financial benefit which was already paid to the petitioners of second case, C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 will also not be recovered as there was no misrepresentation on the part of four petitioners in passing of an order dated 8.1.2002 in their favour or in receiving the payment of their salary and emoluments in higher pay scale of Rs. 1600-2780 and/ or Rs. 5000-8000. 13. The University however may still have an opportunity to give a re-look to the whole matter only if the Government of India has withdrawn the hundred percent financial support for the said Scheme concerning the posts held by the petitioners and only in the event such financial benefit now has to be fully borne by the State Government that the University may reopen the matter but before doing so it must spell out its reasons in the show cause notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Such recourse if at all has to be taken by the University must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the University will have no liberty to take such an action against the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004. 14. Such recourse if at all has to be taken by the University must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the University will have no liberty to take such an action against the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004. 14. Reverting back now the case of the sole petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2868/ 2004, as his case is squarely covered by the facts and circumstances of the case of his four counter part the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004, whatever financial benefit has already been given to the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 must be also given to him but then the University will have again the same liberty to take any action against the petitioner Ashish Kumar Sinha if it chooses to rescind the order dated 8.1.2002 passed in favour of the four petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004. 15. It is however made clear that this Court has not gone into the question as to whether at present there still is availability of hundred percent financial support of the Central Government for the Scheme in question nor has it gone into the issue as to whether the earlier order passed in favour of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4448/2004 was itself without jurisdiction nor even this Court has held that the petitioners would be entitled for all the revisional benefit even if the payment of higher emoluments in the pay scale given to them by way of revision in the order dated 8.1.2002 will have to be borne by the State Government. Thus, requiring prior Government approval to the revised pays scale given to them in the order 8.1.2002. It is however well settled in service jurisprudence that any subsequent event could be governed by giving it only a prospective effect and therefore the earlier order dated 8.1.2002 even if is reviewed, as was done on 24.7.2009, the. same would not stand in the way of the petitioners in getting their salary and emoluments till the hundred (sicpercent ?) financial assistance for the Scheme fn question is not withdrawn. 16. With the aforementioned observation and direction, both the writ applications are disposed of.