IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16269 of 2004 PRABHUNATH PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No. 16413 of 2004 TAHIR ALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mukesh Kant, Advocate For the State: Avinash Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-XI ***** 06. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Prabhunath Pandey (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16269 of 2004) and Tahir Ali (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16413 of 2004), both were appointed as Draftsman in the Chakbandi operations. When the Chakbandi operations were closed, the surplus staff were adjusted as per the policy decision of the Government in different Departments. Initially, both these petitioners were adjusted in Survey Directorate, but they made representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department for their adjustment on the post of Clerk in Siwan Collectorate. Their representation was considered at the Government level and a direction was issued to adjust them in the Collectorate 2 against the post of Clerk, in their own pay-scale. Petitioners have annexed their service-book, maintained in their previous service, before joining the Collectorate, Siwan in order to show that their pay fixation was made in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000. They have also annexed document to show that specific direction of the Government, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms issued for their adjustment was that they should be adjusted in their own pay-scale, i.e., in the pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/-. However, when the petitioners joined their post at Siwan Collectorate, they were not adjusted in the same pay-scale, but their salary was fixed in the reduced pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4500. Petitioners represented their case before the concerned authorities, but even after due consideration, no relief was allowed to the petitioners in the light of Finance Department’s letter no. 8825, dated 20.12.2000. In the Counter Affidavit filed in both the cases by different authorities, it has been stated that there is clear directions in the Finance Department’s letter that after 22.12.2000, all vacancies of Clerk in the Collectorate will be treated as Lower Division Clerk. All appointments against these vacancies will 3 be made in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4500. Since the petitioners have joined after 22.12.2000, on being adjusted, they will be entitled for the same pay-scale, i.e., 3050-4500 /-, as the pay-scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/- is the promotional scale. It has also been stated that petitioners have not suffered any monetary loss on account of their adjustment in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4500/-, as they have been given benefit of Reducible Personal Pay (RPP). Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government, having considered the representation of the petitioners, had issued specific direction to the Collectorate, Siwan that adjustment of the petitioners against the vacant post of Clerk must be made in their own pay-scale, since it was a decision taken by the State itself, the Collectorate could not have arbitrarily adjusted the petitioners in a lower pay-scale. So far the Finance Department’s letter, dated 20.12.2000 is concerned, that specifically indicates that it relates to fresh appointment and in case of adjustment, it has no application. I find merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. The Respondent, District Magistrate, Siwan as well as other Respondents have 4 wrongly interpreted the letter no. 8825, dated 20.12.2000, issued by the Finance Department. The Finance Department’s letter clearly indicates that whatever appointments will be made against the vacancies, subsequent to 20.12.2000, those appointments will be made in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4500/-. There is no whisper in this letter that this will also apply, if any employee is going to be adjusted against any vacancy, especially, when there is specific direction of the State Government that adjustment should be made in incumbents their own pay-scale. It is not disputed by the Respondents in their Counter Affidavits that the salary of the petitioners were not earlier fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. This being an admitted fact, and State Government’s specific direction also being there regarding adjustment of the petitioners in old pay- scale, i.e., Rs. 4000-6000/-, the District Magistrate, Siwan had no other option than to make adjustment of the petitioners in the same pay-scale. So far Reducible Personal Pay is concerned, that can not be a substitute for the pay-scale. It is just a compensatory allowance and fixation of salary in lower pay-scale surely will affect adversely the 5 petitioners in the long run. Considering all these facts, the order no. 61/2002, contained in Memo No. 348, dated 4th of June, 2002, issued by the District Magistrate, Siwan is quashed. A direction is being issued to the District Magistrate, Siwan to issue a fresh order of adjustment in favour of the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from the date of their joining, i.e., 03.03.2002, in case of Prabhunath Pandey and 12.04.2004, in case of Tahir Ali. The petitioners will be entitled for all consequential benefits on account of fixation of their salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from the date of their joining. Accordingly, both the Writ Applications are allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)