IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2971 of 2001 BASANT KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.15900 of 2007 BASHANT KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioner :Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra For the State Mr.Mayank Rukhaiyar, SC to GA 5 (CWJC 2971/01) For the State :Mr.Anant Kumar,JC to SC II (CWJC 15900/07) ----------- 5. 10.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in CWJC No.2971 of 2001 is for quashing the order dated 11.3.2000, by which the pay scale of the petitioner has been reduced to Rs.4000-100-6000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and consequential relief to revise the scale to Rs.5000-8000/-. In CWJC No.15900 of 2007, preferred by the same petitioner, the prayer is for quashing the orders dated 25.10.2007, by which on the prayer of the petitioner for pay protection in terms of the pay scale fixed with regard to him by the Bihar State Dairy Corporation, the erstwhile employer, has been rejected by the State Government with a prayer for consequential relief of pay protection in like manner as granted to certain others also engaged in Bihar State Dairy Corporation and whose services likewise were absorbed in the State Government. The petitioner was initially employed in Bihar State Dairy Corporation. In pursuance of a policy decision of the State - 2 - Government, his services came to be absorbed under the State Government. It is the further case of the petitioner by a policy decision dated 15.6.1987 the State Government also resolved that pay protection shall be granted to the absorbed employees of the Dairy Corporation and in no case shall they be given a lesser pay scale than that being drawn by them prior to absorption. The petitioner was also a science graduate when he was appointed in Bihar State Dairy Corporation along with certain other science graduates, who were altogether 18 in number. When the pay scale of 10 of them came to be reduced by the Corporation after their services had been absorbed, albeit on certain direction of the State Government, the matter came to this Court in CWJC No.6179 of 1986. This Court held that the reduction of the pay scale was bad in law. The petitioner who was in the category of the remaining eight persons, was then decided to be given the same benefit by the Corporation. It appears that, in the meantime, certain others who were likewise aggrieved came in CWJC No.10486 of 1992 when a Division bench of this Court on 19.7.1993 allowed the application and the order canceling higher pay scale granted was allowed. When the pay scale of the petitioner was subsequently sought to be annulled by the State Government, the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No.1399 of 2000. This Court by order dated 18.3.2005 noticed the facts of the case elaborately with regard to his appointment in Dairy Corporation, the absorption, the decision for pay - 3 - protection, the benefit granted to other science graduates etc. This Court considers it proper to quote the following few lines from page 3 of the order: “It goes without saying that after the petitioner was shifted to the permanent establishment of the State he could not be denied salary in the scale to which he was entitled to while he was working in the Corporation nor could he be asked to work on the lower post.” The Bench also held that he was entitled to the revised pay scale also. The matter travelled before the Division Bench in LPA No.908 of 2005 when by order dated 4.9.2006 it was observed that the issue of eligible pay scale was to be determined in terms of the scheme of absorption. However, it appears from the order of the Division Bench dated 4.9.2006 that the issue of eligible pay scale already considered in detail in CWJC No.6179 of 1986 and CWJC No.10486 of 1992 and on which the order in CWJC No.1399 of 2000 fell for consideration in appeal does not appear to have come up for consideration and perhaps the attention of the same was not drawn to the Division Bench by the respective parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the controversy in the present case of the entitlement and the absorption of the petitioner, by reason of grant of pay protection to other science graduates from 18 in number of which the petitioner was also a party and was accordingly granted similar protection by the Bihar State Dairy Corporation stands concluded by the orders of this Court in CWJC No.6179 of 1986 and CWJC No.10486 of 1992. The - 4 - law as enunciated therein still holds the field and has not been disturbed or upset by the order in LPA No.908 of 2005. This Court is further satisfied that the respondents themselves are not under misconception with regard to this position as in their counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.2971 of 2001 only refrain in paragraph 5 is that the benefit of the aforesaid order shall not be available to the petitioner since he was not a party petitioner therein. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the State, after an issue was decided by the High Court. The issue was of the pay protection to be granted to the employees of the Bihar State Dairy Corporation absorbed in the services of the State Government under a policy decision of the State itself. It is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner is not similarly situated as those granted pay protection. The contention that he shall not be entitled to the benefits notwithstanding that the issue had been decided and accepted by the State satisfies this Court that the State is only interested in multiplying litigation by whatever means possible. This court on the facts of this case is satisfied that there was no justification whatsoever for the State respondent to deny the same benefit to the petitioner. Presumably, the respondents themselves were well aware of this position and, therefore, while passing the order dated 25.10.2007 impugned in CWJC No. 15900 of 2007, purposely do not consider it necessary to deal with the orders of this Court in CWJC 6179 of 1986 and CWJC No.10486 of 1992 and chose to conveniently ignore it. - 5 - The Court, therefore, held that the impugned order dated 25.10.2007 reducing his pay scale is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. For the same reasons, the impugned order dated 11.3.2000 is also set aside. The petitioner is entitled to pay protection and salary in the revised scale, in terms of that being granted to him by the Bihar State Dairy Corporation. Insofar as the issue of his entitlement to a post is concerned, that is an aspect for the respondents to consider. The only requirement shall be that the petitioner has to be given a post commensurate with the protected pay scale that he be entitled to. Both the writ applications stand allowed. HR ( Navin Sinha )