IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2599 of 2004 Maheshwar Prasad, son of Late Ram Deo Tiwari, village Nawanagar Nezamat, PS Sahebganj, District Muzaffarpur, Assistant cum Accountant, R.P.S. College, Jaintpur, District Muzaffarpur – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) B.R. Bihar University through its Registrar. (3) Vice Chancellor, B.R. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. (4) Registrar, B.R. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. (5) Principal, R.P.S. College, Jaintpur, District Muzaffarpur – Respondents. 7 10.3.2011 In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 28.1.2004 contained in Annexure 10 by which the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced and fixed at Rs.1830/- in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1800/- without issuing any show cause to the petitioner. An order has also been passed for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in C.N.N. College, Sahebganj on 3.9.1979 by the managing committee. Vide Annexure 9 the State Government approved the services of the petitioner. The petitioner’s pay scale was fixed by the University vide memo no. 4411, dated 30.1.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-. The petitioner filed a representation in which he stated that one Ravindra Rai who was junior to him had got higher scale as a result of which the petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750/-. The petitioner was transferred from C.N.N. College to R.P.P. College, Jaintpur on 15.4.1996. After the transfer of the petitioner one Harendra Pd. Singh, Store Keeper made an 2 objection that the petitioner was getting a higher scale of pay although he had no right to receive the said scale of pay. The matter apparently was subject matter of an enquiry. The conclusion after the enquiry was that there is no illegality in the fixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1500-2750/-. The matter did not rest at this stage, rather, an enquiry was made by the University with respect to pay of all the employees. While deciding the scale to be paid, the petitioner’s pay scale was fixed at Rs.1400-2600/-. Thereafter, Annexure 10 was issued fixing the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale o Rs. 1200-1800/-. A 2nd supplementary affidavit has been filed in which the petitioner has annexed the chart showing fixation of pay by the committee which was to examine the pay scale of non-teaching staff of the college. In the said enquiry held on 30.4.2007 the pay scale of the petitioner was again revised and fixed at Rs. 1400- 2300/-. He was also given replacement of the revised scale according to the report of the pay revision commission. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Routine Clerk and the University has wrongly granted the pay scale of an Assistant. The State Government had accepted his services and as such he was only entitled to the pay scale of a Clerk. It has, therefore, been submitted that the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner is justified. An intervention application has been filed on behalf of one Harendra Pd. Singh in which he claims that he was appointed 3 earlier to the petitioner. It is said that the post of Store Keeper on which he was initially appointed was held to be equivalent to the post of Clerk in the year 1990 and as such the intervener respondent claims that he is senior to the petitioner and ought to be allowed to work as an Accountant in the college. The question whether the petitioner is senior to Harendra Pd. Singh is not to be adjudicated by this court in this writ petition as the prayer is confined to quashing of Annexure 10 by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the excess amount of money which he has received by way of salary until it was refixed at Rs. 1400-2300/-. Counsel for the intervener also informs this court that he has filed a writ petition for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. The intervener respondent may pursue that writ petition. As far as this writ petition is concerned and from the facts stated aforesaid, it would appear that the petitioner had made a representation before the University to grant him a higher scale. It is expected that the University will look into the documents and consider entitlement of the petitioner before accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim. In the circumstances I do not find it to be justifiable for the University to order for recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner as there was no fraud or misrepresentation made on behalf of the petitioner when he was granted the said scale. This writ petition is, thus allowed and that part of the 4 order which relates to recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioner as contained in Annexure 10 is hereby quashed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)