IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3876 of 2006 Sachchida Nand Sharma, Son of Sri Yadu Nandan Sharma, at present working as Principal, Jagjeevan Abhyuday Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Abhyudaynagar (Amarur), District Banka. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, P.S.-L.N. Mithila University, District Darbhanga through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, District Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar, Kameshwawr Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, District Darbhanga. -------- Respondents ----------- 3 28.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in effect is to shift his date of pay fixation on the post of Principal of the college from 3.8.2004 to 20.10.2002, inasmuch as, it is claimed by the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement when the petitioner was appointed by the governing body of the college on the post of Principal on 20.10.2002, the University could not have fixed his salary as on 3.8.2004 simply because the approval of the service of the petitioner was made by the Vice Chancellor on 2.8.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact has also tried to rely on the order 2 of this Court and consequential order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 2.8.2004 to submit that the payment of salary of the petitioner in any event has to be made with effect from the date he started working as a Principal in the affiliated college and not from the date of approval of the service. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioner has simply not been able to appreciate the concept of payment of salary to a teacher/principal of an affiliated college, inasmuch as, in such an affiliated college, the State Government makes payment by way of deficit grant. It is true that in a case of Sanskrit university, there are 32 colleges in which such deficit grant is being paid but nonetheless the statute of the University prescribes that after an appointment is made by a governing body of an affiliated college, it has to be also approved by the University. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, such approval of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Principal was given by an order dated 2.8.2004 in terms of the direction issued by 3 this Court in the order dated 16.3.2004 in CWJC No. 10881 of 2003. Once this Court had never given the University a direction to give retrospective approval and the University’s order of approval has also not been challenged in this writ application, the consequential action of pay fixation has to of course abide by the statutory provision made in the statute. Counsel for the petitioner in fact has submitted that he does not challenge the provision of the statute requiring the appointment made by the governing body to be approved by the University. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application, inasmuch as, the pay fixation chart clearly goes to show that the petitioner’s pay was fixed by way of promotion, inasmuch as, he was earlier holding the post of lecturer (in-charge principal) in the same college and therefore, he was shifted in the pay scale of lecturer (in-charge principal) to professor by giving also the benefit of promotion. Had the 4 respondents treated the appointment of the petitioner as a direct appointment, which they could have, the petitioner’s salary if fixed from 2002, the date of his appointment could have been lesser. In fact, the petitioner stands gainer by such pay fixation though wrongly done by the University but then the decision of the University cannot be faulted with either on fact or in law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed accordingly. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)