IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10438 of 2011 1. Ram Baran Rai S/O-Late Khaheru Rai Vill-Madan Chapra P.S-Purhania, Dist.-Shivhar, At Present Posted At Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Office Meenapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur as Pashudhan Sahayak-----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Dept. of Co-Operative, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Registrar, Deptt. of Co-Operative, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 5. The Principal Secretary, Dept. Of Animal And Husbandry, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 6. The Director, Deptt. Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 7. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 8. The Dist. Animal Husbandry Officer, Muzaffarpur 9. The Sub Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Muzaffarpur -------------------------------------------------- Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samrendra SC -21 ----------------------------- 2 13.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was initially appointed as PACS manager. A time had come when lots of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies went sick. A modality was worked out to utilize the experience and services of these mangers under the State Government by giving them another responsibility, which in the present case was that of a Class III post, on the basis of limited competitive examination held by the State. All those who cleared the examination were found eligible for appointment and the petitioner was one of those persons who came to 2 be appointed on the basis of third limited competitive examination. There was a time gap between first appointment and the appointment which was made including the present petitioner. The appointment letter indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to pay scale of Rs. 3050/- to 4590/-. This notification is annexure-3 to the writ application and is dated 21st June, 2004. Petitioner joined and started work. However some developments took place in the meanwhile. Another round of litigation came before this Court as to the kind of pay scale such persons would be entitled to. On a detailed hearing, judgment came to be rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Ganesh Singh & others vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 159. Learned Single Judge while adjudicating the matter rendered his opinion and findings in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said decision. He categorically held that all such persons who came to be appointed as part of the same transaction of recruitment based on the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court they would be entitled to same pay scale of Rs. 4000 to 6000/- irrespective of the time frame when they came to be appointed. The earlier bifurcation of the cadre of clerks and different pay scale notified by the State would not apply to the case of these kinds of persons including the petitioners of that case. Matter was taken up in LPA before the Division Bench by the State Government but they did not beget the relief they were looking for. SLP against the Division Bench decision too was 3 dismissed by the Apex Court. When the issue came to be settled in the above stated background, the Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operative issued notification dated 13.7.2010 which is annexure-4 to the writ application. This order/notification only reiterates the position which was declared by learned Single Judge in the case of Ganesh Singh & Ors. (Supra). In view of the order of the Principal Secretary of the Co- operative Department the pay scale applicable to the likes of the present petitioner no longer remains an issue. Despite knowing everything, certain functionaries in the State work and take decision on their own even flouting the order of Principal Secretary of Co- operative Department. Petitioner did not beget the pay scale of Rs.4,000 – 6,000 from his supervisors who are said to be respondent nos. 8 and 9, i.e. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Muzaffarpur and the Sub-Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Muzaffarpur. Since there has been failure on the part of these authorities to revise the pay scale to which the petitioner is entitled, he has been compelled to come to the High Court seeking mandamus. To be fair to learned counsel for the State most of the facts which have been noted by this Court in the earlier part of the order are not in dispute because the judgment in Ganesh Singh is a reported decision. The notification contained in annexure-4 is an official document. Therefore, there is no occasion for the respondents to really disagree with the stand taken by the counsel representing the 4 petitioner with regard to his claim. Petitioner should have got the benefit as a matter of right in a routine manner. But unfortunately he has been compelled to come to the High Court for yet another direction. Such conduct of the respondents therefore is required to be deprecated and the Court takes a deem view in the matter with a direction upon the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar that he has an obligation to see that no citizen is harassed at the hands of his subordinates and is made to litigate and part with his precious resources and money. It is left upon to the Director of Animal Husbandry as to the kind of action he contemplates against respondent nos. 8 and 9 for harassing the petitioner. In view of above, a direction therefore is issued upon respondent no.6, the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar that it is his duty to ensure that a clear and categorical order is issued in favour of the petitioner giving him the pay scale of Rs. 4000 - 6000/- in light of the discussion above within a period of four weeks from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. Failure on this count will create a responsibility upon the Director if he is called upon to explain the failure of compliance of this order in any manner. The least which the Director is expected to do against respondent nos. 8 and 9 is to record his displeasure, to be recorded in the service books of those respondents after asking for a show cause 5 in this regard. Litigations of such kind ought not to be allowed to be brought to the High Court and precious time of the Court and resource of the State squandered in such litigations. Let a copy of this order be marked to the office of the Principal Secretary, Co-operative for his information and follow up action. Writ is allowed with directions as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)