IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2224 of 2009 Dashrath Prasad Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd.Singh,Sr. Advocate Mr. Upendra Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bijay Kr Pandey, AC to GP 20 For Accountant General: Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Advocate -------- 3. 12.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is stated to be Superintendent of Central Jail, Bhagalpur belonging to the senior branch of the service. He was subjected to a departmental proceeding in pursuance of which his pay scale was reduced to Rs. 3000-4500/-. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is that the replacement scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500/- given to him is not in accordance with law and that he is entitled to the replacement scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- from the punished scale of Rs. 3000-4500/-. Strong reliance has been placed on Annexure 15 dated 6.10.2006 authored by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department by answering a query of the office of Accountant General specific in context of the petitioner opining that the revised pay scale for Rs. 3000-4500/- was Rs. 10,000-15,200/-. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary. It states that he is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. That he had read and understood the contents of the writ petition. The aforesaid letter dated 6.10.2006 finds reflection in paragraph 19 of the writ application. The counter affidavit does not answer that paragraph. A supplementary counter affidavit has then been filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons. He again says that he is fully acquainted with the case and has gone through the writ petition. Paragraph 19 of the writ petition supported by Annexure 15 again finds 2 no reference. A second supplementary counter affidavit has again been filed by the Assistant Inspector General. That also does not answer the same. Learned Counsel for the State was unable to demonstrate before the Court that the letter dated 6.10.2006 had been modified, varied or set aside at any time. He however sought to persuade the Court that the recitals as contained therein that the replacement scale in context of the petitioner shall be Rs. 10,000-15,200/-, was not correct. So long as the order dated 6.10.2006 is not varied, modified, recalled or set aside in accordance with law it binds the respondents. It is not open for them to collaterally question their own orders in writ petition and urge that it was not in accordance with law. In AIR 1988 SC 1247 (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs Dharmendra Trading Company) the Supreme Court at paragraph 5 has held as follows:- “5. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the concessions granted by the said order dated 30th June, 1969 were of no legal effect as there is no statutory provision under which such concessions could be granted and the order of 30th June, 1969 was ultra vires and bad in law. We totally fail to see how an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax who are functionaries of a State can say that a concession granted by the state itself was beyond the powers of the State or how the State can say so either. Moreover, if the said argument of learned counsel is correct, the result would be that even the second order of 12th January, 1977 would be equally invalid as it also grants concessions by way of refunds, although in a more limited manner and that is not even the case of the appellants.” It is therefore not open for the respondents to question their own order in a writ petition filed seeking implementation of the same. All that is required by the Court is a declaration of the pay scale entitlement of the petitioner in accordance with the communication 3 dated 6.10.2006 of the replacement scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- for the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/-. Let the respondents pay the difference of the pay scale to the petitioner from due date within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)