IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18873 of 2011 1. Dr.Ram Prakash Mahto, son of late Swaroop Chand Mahto, presently workig as Reader and Head of the Department, Department of Commerce, D.S. College, Katihar, ,P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 2. Dr. Ram Niwas Sharma, son of late Narayan Prasad Sharma, presently working as Reader and Head of Department, Department of Psychology, D.S. College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 3. Manjit Mohan, son of Surendra Mohan Ghosh, presently working as Reader and Head of department, Department of English, D.S. College Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 4. Dr. Balram Bhagat, son of late Sri Krishna Bhagat, presently working as Reader and Head of Department, Department of Zoology, D.S. College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 5. Dr. Rajdev Mishra, son of late Sri Kant Mishra, presently working as Reader and Head of Department, Department of Botany, D.S. College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 6. Dr. Nityanand Jha, son of late Siyaram Dutt Jha, presently working as Reader and Head of Department, Department of Chemistry, D.S. College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 7. Devanand Sah, son of late Shiv Praad Sah, presently working as Reader and Head of Department, Department of Physics, Marwari College, Kishanganj, P. O., P.S. and District Kishanganj. 8. Manju Verma, wife of Sri Arun Kumar Verma, presently working as Reader, Department of Political Science, M.J.M. College, Katihar,, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. … … Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar 1. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Higher Education. Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura through the Vice Chancellor. 4. The Vice Chancellor, The Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 5. The Registrar, The Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 6. The Principal, D.S.College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 2 7. The Principal, M.J.M. College, Katihar, P.O., P.S. and District Katihar. 8. The Principal, Marwari College, Kishanganu, P.O., P.S. and District Kishanganj. … … Respondents. For the petitioners: Mr.S.B.K. Manglam,Adv. Mr. Chandan, Adv. For the University: Mr. Vivek Anand Amitesh A.C. to Mr. Naresh Dikshit,Adv. For the State: Mr.Suresh Kumar,A.C. to G.P.5 ---------------------------------- 3. 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University and learned counsel for State. The petitioners seek a direction from this Court for payment of full salary in the revised pay-scale with effect from 1.1.2006 as is being paid to other teachers of the University. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the only reason for denial of their salary in the revised pay-scale is on the ground that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15131 of 2010 in which an interim order dated 13.9.2010 was passed that till further orders of this Court, the University Notification of B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura dated 14.7.2010 in relation to shifting of date of appointment/promotion of the petitioners shall not be given effect to. It is pointed out that the State Government while releasing the funds to the University had directed that those lecturers and teachers whose date of appointment/ promotion has been shifted shall also not be given the benefit of the revised pay-scale but in case there is 3 an order otherwise by this Court then in their case the payment should be made under unrevised scale in complying with the orders of this Court and the benefit of revised U.G. C. scale shall be given after the matter is finally decided. Taking shelter of the said part of the letter, the University has decided in the case of the petitioners that they would be given the benefit of the revised pay scale after the writ petition is decided. In my view, the said approach of the University is perverse. If the petitioners approach this Court against any adverse orders by filing a writ petition and this Court directs stay of the action of the university, the same cannot be used against them in any other matter. In the present matter, the revised pay- scale has not been given to the petitioners on the ground of the orders of this Court that shifting of date of appointment/ promotion shall not be given effect to until further orders of this Court. It does not appear proper that the said interim order is being used against the petitioners that they shall not be paid the salary in the revised pay-scale. It stands to reason that any benefit that becomes payable in the meantime to the other teachers shall be equally payable to the petitioners and non-payment of the same shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The matter can be looked at from another angle. If revised pay-scales were being given to the petitioners with 4 effect from 1.1.2006 and if they were receiving their salary in the revised pay scale prior to their approaching this Court, then could the interim order of this Court have been used for denying the petitioners payment of their salary in the revised pay scale. The answer is clearly in the negative. For the same reason they cannot be denied their salary in the revised scale because there is an interim order of this Curt in their favour. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the respondent University is directed to pay the petitioners their salary in the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners do not succeed in the other writ petition then the difference of amount paid to them in excess in the revised pay scale shall be recoverable from them forthwith. Kanth ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)