IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9743 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR, son of Sri Prabhu Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Kalloo Bara (Bara Bazar), P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Munger. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Secretary, Finance Department Govt. of Bihar, Secretariat, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Bihar Secretariat, Patna. 3.Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. Through Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 4.Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5.Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 6.Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 7.Principal, R.D. & D.J. College, Munger. ----------- 2 9.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Bhagalpur University. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(a)to hold that petitioner is entitled to remain in the pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500/- 3800. (b)Direct the respondents to restore the pay in the pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500/- 3800 and subsequent replacement pay scale of Central pay i.e, in the pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500 w.e.f. 01.04.97. ©Direct the respondents to pay arrears of difference of pay and other all types of arrears viz difference of Dearness allowance, cashier allowance etc. since the date of appointment to till superannuation i.e. 31.07.2005. (d)Hold that petitioner is entitled for cashier allowance of Rs.75/- per month as has been aid to all other cashiers under Bhagalpur University. (e)Be further pleased to grant consequential pecuniary benefits and allowances accruable to the petitioner with interest as also with penal interest as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper. (f)Direct the respondents to pay Rs.50/- per month maximum Rs. 500/- per annum, since February 1991 till 31.07.2005 as Post Graduate Centre work allowance.” 2 With regard to the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner would first submit that the pay scale of the petitioner having been fixed on 23.3.1991 in the time bound pay scale of Rs. 2000 to 3,500/- by office order dated 23.3.1991, the University could not have reduced the same in the month of November, 1995 by down grading it to Rs. 1500-2750/-. He would further submit that the decision of the University in August, 2002 to further down grade to the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs.1400 to 2600/- to Rs. 1400 to 2300/- was wholly unsustainable. He has also availed the decision of the University fixing his salary in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to 8,000/-, whereas, according to him the petitioner was entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500/- as prescribed for the post of Cashier. In this context he has drawn analogy, comparison and resultant discrimination by citing example of one N.K. Jha, Cashier of Banka College. Counsel for the University has not filed any counter affidavit to explain the aforementioned discrepancies, but then from reading of the writ application it becomes clear that the petitioner virtually now wants to reopen the chapter of 1995 by filing of this writ application on 3.8.2007. If the petitioner had any such grievance against his pay fixation or reduction of his pay from Rs. 2000- 3800/- to Rs.1500 to 2750/- of the year 1995 he had to move the concerned authority as also a court of law within a reasonable period. The petitioner having failed to do so at appropriate time, the first part of his relief in this writ application 3 is clearly hit by the vice of delay and laches and therefore this Court would reject such prayer of the petitioner. Coming to the second part of the grievance with regard to rejection of pay of the petitioner in the pay scale from Rs.1400- 2600/- to Rs. 1400 to 2300/-, this Court would find that the pay fixation was made on the basis of the petitioner being entitled to remain in the pay scale of Rs. 1500 to 2750/- and its replacement pay scale of Rs.5000 to 8000/-. It is true that the petitioner claims that after his retirement on 31.7.2005 he has been subjected to reduction of pay without any notice and/or affording an opportunity of hearing, but then no such order of the University reducing the pay scale of the petitioner is on record and the petitioner, in fact, wants to draw such analogy only on the basis of his pay fixation statement showing his lower fixation of pay in the pay scale of Rs.5000 to 8000/- in place of Rs. 6500 to 10,500/-. As noted above, no reason emanates from any order of the University and thing become still worse due to absence of a counter affidavit by the University. That being so, this Court would only give liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of his pay fixation from Rs. 5000 to 8000/- to Rs. 6500 to 10,500/-, a cause of action which was available to the petitioner even after his retirement on account the action of the University seeking to reduce his pay even after his retirement. If the University would find that the case of N.K.Jha of Banka College holding the same post of cashier was comparable 4 and there was no anamoly in such pay fixation of N. K.Jha, the petitioner will also be extended the benefit of pay fixation of Rs. 6500- 10,500/- with the consequential benefit in the matter of fixation of pay scale and payment of retirement benefit. It is however made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any arrears of salary, inasmuch as, the writ petition has been filed on 3.8.2007 and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to only for revision in the retirement benefit. Let it be also made clear that this Court has not gone into actual merits of claim of the petitioner with regard to his claim for fixation of his salary in the pay scale of Rs.6500 to Rs.10,500/-. Such claim being a pure question of fact in the first instance has to be decided by the University strictly in accordance with law and in keeping with the government rules, circular and instructions. Such exercise, however, must be completed by the University within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if any financial benefit would accrue to the petitioner on any head of his retirement benefit, the same must be extended to the petitioner within the next three months. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)