IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8867 of 2007 MD.JAMALUDDIN son of late Md. Kalim, resident of village- Rajpur, Post Office- Rajpur, Police Station- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur, at present Skilled Worker, Food Science and Technology Department, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, Bhagalpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY, Bihar through its Registrar, having his headquarter at Pusa, District- Samastipur. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Post- Office- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 3. The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar Post Office-Pusa District- Samastipur. 4. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Post Office- Pusa, District- samastipur. 5. The Associate Dean-cum- Principal, Bihar Agriculture College, Sabour, District- Bhagalpur. 6. The State of Bihar through the Agriculture Production Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna-800015. 7. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna-800015. 8. the Finance Commissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. .. Respondents. ------------- 2. 02.8.2010 Heard Mr. A B. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Upadhaya, learned counsel for Ragendra Agriculture University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the pay-scale of the post of the petitioner i.e. Skilled Worker carrying the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/- (Class III) to Rs.3200-4900/- at par with and 2 equivalent to the post of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 1.1.1996, instead of Rs.2615-3540 as revised under Government of Bihar, Agriculture Department’s Resolution No.3046 (Sachiba) dated 11.7.2003 read with Rajendra Agriculture University Office Order No. 571 dated 16.10.2003.” Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if the Skill Worker, a post held by the petitioner prior to pay revision had pay-scale of Rs.975- 1540 alike Laboratory Assistant and Physical Educational Instructor and in course of pay revision others two have been given the pay-scale of Rs.3050- 4590, it would defy all sort of logic as to why Skill Workers have been placed in the pay-scale of Rs.2610- 3540. In this context, he has also submitted that the petitioner had filed representation before both the University as also before the State Government but both the authorities have tried to snowball the issue from one to another. Mr. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the University on the other hand would submit that power of revision and fixation of pay scale is not within the competence of the University and it is for the State 3 Government to provide the revised pay-scale. He would also submit that law on the subject is very clear that a pay-scale is fixed on many considerations including qualification at the entry point, job requirement and promotional avenue etc. He would also submit that the posts of Laboratory Assistant and Physical Educational Instructor are not comparable with the post of Skill Worker. Inasmuch as the decision impugned in this case is one taken by the State Government and the State has filed a counter affidavit which to say the least is not only perverse but also a waste of public expenditure. The only paragraph of the counter which addresses on the issue reads as follows; “4. That it is also stated that the Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa has already been requested to meet the legal grievance of the petitioner and file detailed counter-affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna and in this regard vide Letter No.4270, dated 6.9.2007 and 2534 dated 21.4.2007, directed to file Counter affidavit and the copy of the same make available to this department.” One is amazed with the skill of the deponent of the counter affidavit Mr. Ratan Kumar Bhagat 4 holding the post of Deputy Director Agriculture. If that was his understanding that the matter related to University, he has to explain his conduct to the controlling authority because this affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 and 7 namely State of Bihar and Agriculture Production Commissioner. It is really pathetic to find that such counter affidavit are being filed which absolutely would serve no purpose. Here in this case, the petitioner is directly questioning the decision of the State Government with regard to fixation of pay for the post of Skill worker and the reply comes from the State it is the University to look into the matter, as if the University has its own financial power and has been authority to overreach the order of the State Government. In that view of the matter the Agriculture Production Commissioner is therefore now directed to look into this aspect not only for this case but for other cases. There are large number of cases before this Court relating to Rajendra Agriculture University wherein the government decision are being questioned before this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of 5 with a direction to the Agriculture Production Commissioner to now examine the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the facts already stated in the representation filed by the petitioner and to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the claim of the petitioner is allowed, he would be entitled for all consequential benefit from the date of such pay-fixation for other posts but if the Agriculture Production Commissioner would reject the claim of the petitioner, he would be required to record reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. Let it, however, be made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner and therefore the State Government through Agriculture Production Commissioner must take his own independent decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 6