IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8262 of 2005 JANARDAN PRASAD SHRIVASTAWA, SON OF LATE MANGAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. KALUPAKAR, POLICE STATION PHARHARA, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN, PRESENTLY POSTED AS ACCOUNTS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION NO. 2, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KHAGAUL. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, NORTH, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BUILDING, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KHAGAUL, PATNA. 5. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KHAGAUL, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION NO. 1, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KHAGAUL, PATNA. 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION NO. 2, IRRIGATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KHAGAUL, PATNA. …………… RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONER : - MR. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. HUSAMUDDIN AZAD, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : - AC TO AAG 6. ----------- 03/ 20.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of letter No. 864 dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure-7), whereby his pay scale has been reduced from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.4000-6000 in the light of Finance Department Resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999. Further prayer is for quashing of Annexure-8, whereby his pay fixation has been made in the reduced scale, Annexure-9, whereby after reduction of pay scale and its fixation 2 in the reduced pay scale, show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner as to why his pay scale be not reduced and the amount received in the enhanced pay scale be recovered. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of Annexure-11, which is the final order passed on consideration of the show cause submitted by the petitioner. Impugned Annexures - 7, 8, 9 and 11 have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents have arbitrarily reduced his pay scale, despite the fact that this issue has already been settled by the High Court in several similar matters and finally in view of the order passed in the writ application, the Finance Department vide resolution dated 6.8.2002 (Annexure-14) has resolved that pay scale of the post of Accounts Clerk, after merger of the post of Junior and Senior Accounts, will be of Rs. 260-408. Such Accounts Clerk will be entitled for revised replacement pay scale of Rs.730-1080 with effect from 1.4.1981, in the revised scale of Rs.1400- 2300 with effect from 1.1.1986 and with effect from 1.1.1996 they will be entitled for the pay scale of 3 Rs.4500-7000. Petitioner was appointed as Work Sarkar in the Work Charge Establishment on 30.8.1973. He was taken into regular establishment on 19.2.1981 and appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk with effect from 2.6.1983. On account of merger with effect from 1.5.1980, he also got benefits of merger with effect from 21.3.1981. His salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.260-408, which was subsequently, on recommendation of 5th Pay Revision, was fixed in the revised replacement scale of Rs.4500-7000, with effect from 1.1.1996. Petitioner’s salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, in consonance with the Finance Department Resolution dated 6.8.2002 (Annxure-14). Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of similarly situated employee, namely Jamuna Prasad Singh also Respondent had taken decision to reduce his salary and fix it in the lower pay scale. Annexure-17/1 has been annexed in support of the contention. Annexure-17/1, annexed with supplementary affidavit, indicates that by same order 4 petitioner as well as Jamuna Prasad Singh were placed in the reduced pay scale and they had been given benefit of A.C.P. ion the reduced pay scale. Jamuna Prasad Singh challenged the order reducing his salary on account of fixation in reduced pay scale, by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3618 of 2004. Writ application allowed vide order dated 28.3.2006, placing reliance on a judgment dated 20.1.2006 passed in the case of Vishnu Kant Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others. The order, whereby pay scale of Jamuna Prasad Singh has been reduced, was quashed and a direction was issued to get him benefit of the judgment in case of Vishnu Kant Mishra as his case is fully covered by this judgment. This order was challenged by the State in L.P.A. No.386 of 2007, but the same was dismissed by Division Bench. The Department of Water Resources, thereafter, vide order dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure-18/1, 18/2 and 18/3) gave all benefits to Jamuna Prasad Singh, for which he would have been entitled, on account of fixation of salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. Considering the fact that issue is well settled 5 and there is no reason for holding that petitioner was entitled for lower scale, specially, when there was no other pay scale than Rs.260-408, after merger with effect from 21.3.198. Subsequently, the petitioner on account of fixation of his salary in the pay scale of Rs.260-408, got benefit of pay revision in the replacement scale and then his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. The impugned orders were passed in a most arbitrary manner by the respondents lowering down the pay scale of the petitioner, without any rhyme and reason for the same. In the counter affidavit also no other reason except Annexure-A has been shown for passing such order, whereby the petitioner’s scale has been reduced. So far Annexure-A is concerned, it’s complete answer is Annexure-2. For all these reasons, the orders contained in Annexure- 7 dated 19.12.2003, Annexure-8 dated 16.12.2003, Annexure-9 dated 24.12.2003 and Annexure -11 dated 17.1.2004 are quashed. Respondents are directed to allow all consequential 6 benefits to the petitioners for which he is entitled on account of fixation of salary in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. Petitioner will be entitled for same scale, in which he was getting his salary prior to issuance of impugned orders. Since, recovery has already been made from the salary of the petitioner; the recovered amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months from the date of production/communication of this order. This application is, accordingly, allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)