IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2513 of 2004 LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, son of Late Gurusevi Sharma, resident of village + P. O. + P.S.- Riga, District- Sitamarhi, at present posted as Routine Clerk in M.K.S. College, Trimuhan Chandauna, Darbhanga. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Vice-Chancellor. 5. The Registrar, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga. 6. The Finance Controller-cum- Finance Officer, Lalit Narain Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga… 7. The Principal, M. K. S. College, Trimuhan, Chandauna, Darbhanga. .. Respondents. ----------- 3. 16.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(a) For quashing the letter bearing Memo No. 8330-34/C dated 28.6.2002 issued by Respondent no. 5 by which the pay fixation of the petitioner has been made in the pay scale of Rs.975 to 1540 with effect from 7.1.1994 without considering the objection of the petitioner and for quashing vide letter No. 8122-65/2126 dated 8.7.2000 by which the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed in the scale of Rs.975-1540. (b) For issuance of an appropriate - 2 - writ commanding the respondents for payment of salary of the petitioner in the pay scale of rS.1500-2750 on the basis of Vth. Pay Revision replacement scale of rs.785-1210 in which scale the petitioner was appointed and consider his case for adjustment on the sanctioned vacant post of office Assistant on which post, he is working since his initial appointment and he holds full qualification for the same. (C) For directing the respondents in the alternative to fix his pay in the scale of Rs.1200 to 1800 from the date of his appointment on the compassionate ground if Govt. letter No. 14/M/1-0202/94-1326 (Annexure-11) dated 21.8.1995 is found to be applicable in the case of petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that true it is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of routine clerk by the University but then there has been an apparent anomaly by way of pay fixation when the 5th Pay Revision Committee report was sought to be implemented by the University. He would explain that the petitioner was drawing his salary in the pay scale of Rs.785-1210 but in the revised pay scale his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.975-1540. According to counsel for the petitioner this was revised pay scale of Rs. 535-765/- and the petitioner was entitled for revision of his salary in the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750/-. - 3 - The issue, in fact, was quite simple inasmuch as all that was to be seen as to what the Government notification had provided while fixing pay-scale of the post of routine clerk which was earlier being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.785-1210. This job could have been done either by the State Government or by the University or by both by providing the notification in their counter affidavit but then such has been no longer the practice because this writ petition after being filed on 25.2.2004 and despite order dated 18.1.2006 is still awaiting the filing of the counter affidavit. It has taken four years for this case to have its turn again and now when this case has been placed for final disposal in the year 2010 there is again same usual prayer of adjourning the case for enabling the respondents to file counter affidavit. This can no longer be continued much less allowed. This Court, therefore, would direct both the State Government and the University to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for grant of pay-scale of Rs.1500-2750/-. It is made clear that the petitioner will be - 4 - only entitled for payment of the pay scale of post of Routine Clerk as was revised by the State Government for the university employees from time to time. The petitioner,however, would not be given any higher scale of pay because the Principal of the College had chosen to take some work of post of accountant, cashier or Assistant from the petitoner. The petitioner’s right therefore would only flow from his order of appointment which as noted above, has been made on the post of routine clerk. While deciding the case of the petitioner, the University and the Government must examine the plea of the petitioner that in other Universities Routine Clerks have already been given the pay scale of Rs.1500-2750 or none has been subjected to same fixation of pay to which the petitioner or other Routine Clerks by virtue of being an employee of Lalit Narain Mithila University was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/-. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file his self-contained representation addressed to the Registrar of Lalit Narain Mithila University and the Registrar on receipt of such - 5 - representation will examine the case of the petitioner and if he finds that anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioner was on account of fault on the part of the University officials, he would direct for its correction, but then if he would find that the petitioner’s pay scale of Rs.975-1540/- was in consonance with the government decision, he would refer the case of the petitioner with his comments to the Director Higher Education who then would take a final decision keeping in view the practice which has been followed in other universities. It would be however open for the Director, Higher Education to either grant the petitioner the same pay-scale which is being given to the counter part Routine Clerks in the other Universities or reduce the pay scale of all the Routine Clerk given higher pay-scale despite the government notification of paying the salary of the post of routine clerk in the pay-scale of Rs.975 to 1540 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. A clear decision in the case of the petitioner either by the University or by the State Government or by both of them must be taken strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. - 6 - In the event, the petitioner is found entitled to monetary benefit; the payment thereof must also be paid to him in next three months from passing of such order. If the respondents come to a conclusion that pay fixation of the petitioner was correct, they would be required to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)