IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12526 of 2008 1. Parsuram Singh, S/o Sri Dhruv Singh, R/o Village-Dharampura, P.S.-Daudpur, District-Chapra. 2. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Ramanand Singh, Village-Amsori Sarsar, P.S.-Siwan on ofassil, District-Siwan. 3. Satyadeo Narayan Jha, S/o Tribhuwan Jha, Village-Pratappur, P.S.- Karja, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. Shivendra Kumar, S/o Laxmi Narayan Deo, Village+P.S.-Sahupur Bhatta, District-Bhagalpur. 5. Md. Khalil Ahamd, S/o Sri Abdul Rahim, Village-Bikampur, Tarklane, Gali No.-3, Bhagalpur. 6. Laddu Prasad, S/o Late Saheli Sah, Village-Gola Road, Barh, P.S.- Barh, District-Patna. 7. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Parashnath Singh, Village-Bisunpura, P.S.-Bihta, District-Patna. 8. Pannalal Kamat, S/o Damodar Kamat, Village-Maina, P.S.-Mehsi, District-Saharsa. 9. Jai Prakash Singh, S/o Late Jai Gopal Singh, Village-Ramnagar, P.S.-Maner, District-Patna. 10. Radhey Shyam Verma, S/o Chamsoolal Verma, Village+P.S.- Biharsharif, District-Nalanda. 11. Amrendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jaganath Singh, Village-Maina, P.S.-Mehsi, District-Saharasa. 12. Md. Mokhtar Ahamad, S/o Md. Noor, Village+P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 13. Phulo Mishra, S/o Late Jugeshwar Mishra, Village-Phalwara, P.S.- APN Rameshwarnagar, District-Darbhanga. 14. Bhawani Pd. Yadav, S/o Ram Janam Rai, Village=Ami, P.S.- Dighwara, District-Chapra. 15. Prabhakr Upadhyaya, S/o Radha Pd. Upadhyaya, Village+P.S.- Mehs, District-Shekhpura. 16. Abhiram Singh, S/o Late Jank Singh, Village-Karawan, P.S.- Dhanarua, District-Patna. 17. Kishori Pd. Yadav, S/o Late Sukhlal Rai, Village-Nariar Tola, Sheri Nawada, P.S.-Molipur, District-Muzaffarpur. 18. Girija Nandan Singh, S/o Late Indradeo Singh, Village-Bhokhri, P.S.-Karahat, District-Rohtas. 19. Kanhaiya Pathak, S/o Late Chandrashekhar Pathak, Village- Bisunpur, P.S.-Koelwar, P.S.-Bhojpur. 20. Zahid Ahmad, S/o Late Humeer Ahamad, Village-Herthu, P.S.- Islampur, District-Nalanda. ………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector General (Technical Services and Communication), Bihar, Patna. 5. Assistant Inspector General (Wireless), Bihar, Patna. ……..Respondents. - 2 - ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, G.P.-22 Mr. N.K. Prasad, A.C. to G.P.-22. 2/ 05.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. All petitioners had initially joined as literate constable operators (L.C.O) on or before 1974 and promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Wireless) on or before1978. Presently, they are working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Wireless). The Finance Department, Government of Bihar, through Letter No. 764 dated 24.02.1992, issued an order regarding pay equalization, which was called Reduciable Pay Protection (R.P.P.). The benefit of R.P.P. was given with effect from 01.05.1989. The object behind this decision was to equalize the pay of senior employees to the juniors, getting higher salary. This benefit was to continue till date, the seniors and juniors will be in the same rank. Petitioners’ grievance is that the benefit earlier allowed to them by the Finance Department vide circular dated 24.02.92 has been withdrawn, vide the Office Order No. 123/04, and 579/07 issued by the Director General of Police. On account of issuance of these orders, salary of petitioners have been - 3 - reduced and fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-, which is less than the salary payable to their juniors, and amount already paid to the petitioners in the form of Reduciable Pay Protection (R.P.P.) is being recovered from their salary. Prayer of the petitioners is for quashing of the impugned orders and to restrain respondents from making any recovery of the amount paid in the form of Reduciable Pay Protection to the petitioners and to continue payment of their reduciable pay protection so that they can get at least equal salary as their juniors are getting. In the counter affidavit, the reason shown for issuance of impugned orders is that the Finance Department, while verifying the pay fixation of Inspectors, S.Is. and A.S.Is., found that in course of fixation of their salary in the revised pay scale, advantage of R.P.P. has wrongly been given to them. The Finance Department while verifying the provisional pay fixation of the employees working as Inspectors, S.Is. and A.S.Is., noticed this error and in order to correct it, issued the impugned orders. vide Office Order No. 123/04, contained in Memo No. 448, dated 24.03.2004 and consequential order contained in Memo No. 538/07. Since, excess amount has been paid to the petitioners on account of erroneous fixation of their salary, as such, direction was issued for its recovery. In case of the A.S.I., the excess amount paid to them has been adjusted from salary paid to them and from the financial benefit allowed to them by - 4 - way of A.C.P. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the benefit allowed to them with effect from 1989 has been withdrawn suddenly, even without following the procedure as contained in circular dated 24.02.92 and without obtaining approval from the government. In the similar manner this benefit had been withdrawn, in case of similarly situated person now working in the State of Jharkhand, after the Cadre Division on account of Re-organization of States. Impugned orders were challenged by those employees and the orders were quashed. The amount already deducted, were directed to be refunded to the petitioners and a direction had also been issued to make payment of salary as it was earlier being paid on account of the benefit allowed to them by way of Reduciable Pay Protection. It has also been stated that the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is only the petitioners who are being discriminated, on account of unreasonable orders, passed arbitrarily. The respondents have not assigned any satisfactory reason in the counter affidavit, for reducing the pay scale of the petitioners, after several years of its’ fixation by the Finance Department, except that it was provisional and finding error it was later on rectified. The counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed - 5 - reliance on the circular dated 31.07.2000, relating to pay parity, where it is stated that seniors cannot get salary less than their juniors. In case, it is so, disparity will be removed by increasing the salary of the seniors and for this the provision of R.P.P. was introduced in the year 1989. Since, petitioners were getting lower salary in comparison to their juniors, for equalizing their salary to their juniors, pay protection in the form of R.P.P. was granted. Such amount cannot be recovered. In the counter affidavit not a single case has been referred to show that on account of the benefits allowed to the petitioner in the year 1989, any senior officer has suffered disparity. Considering all these facts and also that there was no specific reason for issuing such blanket order by the respondents in the year 2004 and 2007, both the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioners in the same pay scale, they were getting prior to issuance of impugned orders, and refund the amount already deducted from the salary/A.C.P. of the petitioners, on account of the issuance of the impugned orders. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)