IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11267 OF 2006 BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE NIREKHAN SINGH, R/O VILLAE SALHAN POLICE STATION GARKHA DISTRICT CHAPRA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.DISTRICT ACCOUNT OFFICER, SARAN, CHAPRA. 5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARAN CHAPRA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 29.07.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.06.2011 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- Additionally, the respondents should also inform this Court as to why the petitioner was subjected to the impugned order when a direction was already issued by this Court in the order dated 14.7.1997 in CWJC No. 10911 of 1996 (Diploma Pharmacists’’ Organization, Bihar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) holding all the incumbents holding the post of Pharmacist in the Government of Bihar to be entitled for replaced pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- as recommended by the Anomaly Removal Committee in its report contained in paragraph no.38 at Page 183. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Ld. AAG-7 by filing counter affidavit has brought on record the government decision dated 20.07.2011, whereby and whereunder the pay 2 scale of the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist as per the decision of the pay revision committee has been restored and there is a Government decision that the petitioner will be entitled for payment of salary for the period from 01.01.1986 to 01.03.1989 on notional basis and from 01.03.1989 to 31.03.1995 by depositing the amount of provident fund, whereafter he would be entitled for cash component w.e.f. 01.04.1995. The import of the order dated 20.07.2011, therefore, would automatically mean that the Government has realized its mistake as with regard to the reduction of the pay scale of the petitioner and has eventually restored the pay scale which was earlier granted to him. As a matter of fact, when the impugned order stands recalled from the date of issuance, nothing would survive now for this court to make any further adjudication on the issue raised in this writ application. Mr. Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner however, has an apprehension that the amount which has 3 already been recovered from the salary of the petitioner on account of the impugned order may not be refunded or it may take a long spell of time to get the same. This Court would find that such apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly unfounded, inasmuch as, when the impugned order itself has been recalled any prejudicial action taken against the petitioner including recovered amount, if any, has to be restored back to the petitioner. That being so, this application stands allowed in view of the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It goes without saying that any consequential order passed on the impugned order would also stand automatically revoked. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)