IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12470 of 2002 RAM NANDAN PRASAD MAURYA, SON OF SHRI MUNSHI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF D.V.C. COLONY, P.S. GARDANIBAGH TOWN AND DISTT. PATNA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL BIHAR AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, 8-SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA. For the petitioner : M/s. Ashok Kumar, Amarnath Singh, Sharwan Kumar, Advocates. For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate. ----------- 07. 17.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the General Manager cum Chief Engineer of the Board bearing Memo No.3517 dated 3.8.1996, Annexure-2, whereunder he has given direction to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Circle, Patna to refix the pay of the petitioner and to make recovery of the excess amount paid to him. He is also aggrieved by the order of the Electrical Executive Engineer dated 13.8.1996, Annexure-3, whereunder salary of the petitioner has been refixed in compliance of the direction of the General Manager cum Chief Engineer dated 3.8.1996. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order refixing the salary of the petitioner dated 13.8.1996, Annexure-3 is contrary to the directions of the High Court contained in judgment dated 14.2.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11142 of 1993, Annexure-17, whereunder other similarly - 2 - situate Account Assistants have been granted pay protection. It is further submitted that had the General Manager, Executive Engineer issued notice to the petitioner before refixing his salary, petitioner would have explained the entire matter and the order impugned may not have been passed. Highlighting the aforesaid aspect of the matter petitioner has ready represented before the Secretary of the Board under representation dated 19.10.2001, Annexure-18. It is also submitted that other similarly situate including Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava who is junior to the petitioner in the gradation list have been granted pay protection while fixing their pay and emoluments and on account of failure of the Executive Engineer to grant the petitioner pay protection he is getting salary less than what he was entitled for before the revision. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Board, I direct the competent authority of the Board to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.10.2001, Annexure-18 in the light of my observations above as also the earlier order of the High dated 14.2.1995, Annexure-17 and the competent authority of the Board should pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the competent authority of the Board. Petitioner is also at liberty to file supplementary representation annexing other order(s) of the High Court. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)