IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3014 of 2010 1. YUGAL KISHORE UPADHYAY S/O LATE RAM PRASAD UPADHYAY R/O VILL & P.O. KORAWAN,VIA-NAUBATPUR, P.S.NAUBATPUR, DISTT-PATNA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS STENO -TYPIST , QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION NO.1, WATER RSOURCES DEPARTMENT, ANISABAD, PATNA-800002 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ANISABAD, PATNA 5. THE TECHNICAL SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DESIGN MONITORING CIRCLE ANISABAD, PATNA 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION NO.1, ANISABAD, PATNA ----------- 02. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, who working on daily wages in the Water Resources Department on the post of Steno-Typist came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8487 of 1999 inter alia with a prayer for grant of minimum time scale of pay of that post. He contended that similarly situated employees on daily wages, who had moved this Court, are getting minimum time scale of pay. This Court opined without going into the merits that, if similarly situated employees are being 2 paid minimum time scale of pay and the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by them, he is entitled to the same relief. The authorities were directed to pass appropriate orders accordingly. The petitioner was granted the minimum time scale of pay from 21.9.1995 with effect from that date itself. He was also paid increments for certain periods. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2008 and the consequential orders dated 3.8.2009 and 23.2.2010, annexed to I.A. No. 1923 of 2010. By the aforesaid orders the respondents have fixed his eligibility to the minimum time scale of pay from 1999, being the year when he filed his writ application. As a consequence, recovery has been ordered for the minimum time scale of pay in between 1995 and 1999. It is submitted that the recovery so ordered also includes the specified increments paid to the petitioner from 21.9.1995 till his regularization so done on 29.1.2007. Consequently the respondents in pursuance thereof have also reduced his pay scale as fixed after regularization ex-parte. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the revision of the date of grant of minimum time scale of pay has been fixed in accordance with the date when 3 the petitioner filed his writ application and on which criteria the minimum time scale pf pay had been granted to those with whom the petitioner seeks parity. It is next submitted that he is not entitled to any increments prior to regularization. In C.W.J.C. No. 8487 of 1999, this Court held that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief as grated to those similarly situated by grant of minimum time scale of pay. It was also noticed that the respondents were granting the relief to those who obtained orders from this Court. This Court directed consideration of his case on principles of parity. The respondents undoubtedly understood it in a manner of their satisfaction and then granted him parity in grant of minimum time scale of pay with those similarly situated by an order dated 28.4.2005. This was without any mis-representation by the petitioner. This Court in the entirety of the mater finds it difficult to sustain the impugned action of the respondents in directing recovery of the minimum time scale of pay given to the petitioner from 1995 till 1999. On the contrary, if the respondents had granted the minimum time scale of pay to others similarly situated, only after they had obtained certain orders from this Court, fairness required the respondents to suo motu grant 4 the benefit to all similarly situated on representation made instead of asking them to obtain individual orders from this Court. This Court, therefore, does not uphold the action of the respondents insofar as it directs recovery from 1995 fixing the time scale of pay from 1999. The impugned orders are therefore quashed to that extent. The petitioner has been regularized on 29.1.2007. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit of the dis-entitlement of the petitioner to increments before regularization in the minimum time scale of pay. In that view of the matter, leave is sought to pursue the issue of recovery of any specified increments granted on the minimum time scale of pay by filing a representation. This Court, therefore, does not interfere with the impugned orders insofar as they make recovery for any specified increments granted to the petitioner, while he hold the minimum time scale of pay as a daily wages. That is a matter to be considered by the authorities upon the representation of the petitioner. Naturally the issue of fixation of the correct pay scale of the petitioner shall abide by any fresh 5 decision that may be taken on his representation. If the petitioner so represents, it is expected that the representation shall be considered and disposed off expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any recovery made in between the period 1995 to 1999, which does not include any increments is directed to be refunded to the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed only to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)