IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15136 of 2010 RAM CHANDRA ROY MADHUKAR, SON OF LATE DUNIYA RAM ROY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MURTAZAPUR, POLICE STATION – JANDAHA, DISTRICT – VAISHALI. ……. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR TRHOUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, H.R.D. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. ………. RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.17348 of 2010 DR.MADAN MOHAN MISHRA, SON OF LATE SURENDRA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, POLICE STATION – UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA. ………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR TRHOUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, H.R.D. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA. ……….. RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONERS: - MR. HEMANT KUMAR JHA, ADV. FOR THE UNIVERSITY : - MR. P.N. SHAHI, ADV. FOR THE STATE : - G.P.21, P.A. 7. ----------- 2 15.11.2010 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner , the Learned Counsel for the L .N .Mithila University and the State . As the issues are similar in these two writ petitions with the consent of the parties, both are taken up for disposal at this stage itself. The two issues, which are involved in these cases are whether (i) the two increments, which are to be granted for - 2 - higher academic qualification of Ph.D degree level is to be granted prospectively from the year 2010 or w.e.f is 1.1.1996 and (ii) from which date the basic pay of the Reader would be fixed in the scale of Rs. 14,940-/. In my view, both these questions have been answered repeatedly by this Court but ass usual, the judgments fell on the deaf ears of the University which necessitated each individual to come to this Court again and again and get similar orders. So far as the first issue is concerned, again I may notice some facts. It appears that upon implementation of the revised U.G.C pay scale of Rs. 14,940-/ with effect from 1.1.1996 government decided to offer special incentive to the teachers. In this incentive it was provided that all the teachers who completed their Ph.D degrees on or before 1.1.1996, would get the two extra increments. This decision was acted upon till some time.Later, government cancelled or withdrew the decision. This was challenged before this Court and this Court inter alia held that a decision to cancel can only be effective prospectively and also held that the incentive already having been granted could not be taken back .This led to the government revising its decision and circulating it on or about 18.5.2010.What is curious to find in this resolution of the government is that it notices the history of this incentive and clearly mentioned that the incentive is being restored but it tale is attached that the financial incentive would be available only prospectively i.e. w.e.f 18.5.2010 though in policy the incentive is available to all teachers ,who had obtained Ph.D degree prior - 3 - to 1.1.1996, which was the resolution of the State, dated 23.7.2010. In my view, the position is not correct once in the year 2001 the State government has granted the incentive and some persons qualified for it. They become entitled to it with effect from 1.1.1996 as per the government resolution itself. This was wrongly withdrawn and/ or cancelled and that being so, once it was restored the restoration would as it was originally contemplated it cannot be that some persons who had been granted the benefit for 2001 would get from 1996 others were wrongly kept away from the benefit would only get from 2010, even though both were entitled to it here petitioner obtained his Ph.D degree in the year 1991 itself . He was entitled to the benefit at the very initial stage itself , I accordingly have no option but to hold that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of the two extra increments for Ph. D degree. Accordingly, Ram Chandra Ray Madhukar, so far as, the question of fixation of basic pay scale of Reader as Rs. 14,940-/ is concerned, the matter has been set at rest as has also been noticed in the case of Dr. Madan Mohan Mishra and others being C.W.J.C. No. 33 of 2010, disposed of on 10.8.2008 and analogous cases . The detailed judgment is to be found in the case of Dr. Madan Mohan Mishra the State of Bihar and others being C.W.J.C. No 18552 of 2009 disposed of on 5.7.2010, the same would apply. If the petitioners had been Readers for more than five years prior to 1.1.1996 then their basic pay scale as on 1.1.1996 would be determined on basis of Rs. 14,940-/ . - 4 - It is pleaded and not controverted that in the first case petitioner became Reader in 1984 and in the second case , the petitioner became Reader on 18.1.1990. Thus in both cases, they had been Readers for more than five years prior to 1.1.1986 and their basic pay on 1.1.1996 would be Rs. 14,940/- and denial thereof or alteration to the contrary by the University would be totally unauthorized. I, accordingly, direct the University to immediately correct the pay scale within a period of two months from today and make payment of arrears accordingly within a period of one month thereafter if any . While doing so the University will take care of the petitioner consequent to the revision on basis of U.G.C pay scale and the payment of arrears would include all such dues as well. The writ applications are accordingly disposed of. Namita/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)