IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1083 of 2007 LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS Versus DR.UDAY NATH PANDEY @ DR.U.N.PANDEY ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated the, 21st July, 2008. We heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the Single Judge was not right in holding that the letter of the Government bearing no. 1300 dated 10th July, 2001 has been quashed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11986 of 2001. He would further submit that since the view of the Single Judge that the petitioner was entitled to salary of Rs.22,400/- and not Rs.21,400/-, is , inter alia, based on that erroneous finding, the directions given in the impugned order are not legally sustainable. 3. The counsel for the original writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) did admit that the government letter bearing no. 1300 dated 10th July, 2001 has not been completely quashed as observed by the Single Judge. He, however, sought to justify the order of the Single Judge. - 2 - 4. In our view, once the counsel for the parties are ad- idem that the government letter dated 10th July, 2007 has not completely been quashed, the order passed by the Single Judge cannot be sustained and the matter has to be re-considered by the Single Judge as ought we know but for the said finding what would have been the ultimate decision. The Single Judge made following observations: “Be that as it may, the said letter of the Government bearing no. 1300 dated 10th July, 2001 has since been quashed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11986 of 2001.” 5. Surely, what has been observed by the Single Judge as noticed above has been the reason for the impugned order. 6. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 11th September, 2007 and restore the writ petition to the file of the Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be agitated before the Single Judge. 6. L.P.A. stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/