IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13736 of 2006 Dr. Nagendra Kumar, S/o Late Gopi Nath Prasad, retired Principal In-charge and University Professor of History H.R. College Mairwa, P.O. Mairwa, P.S. Mairwa, District Siwan. Permanent resident of Village & P.O. Jagarnatha, P.S. Uchchkagoan, District Gopalganj. At present practicing in Patna High Court as an Advocate. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Rajbhavan, Patna. 3. Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 5. Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 6. Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 7. Finance Officer, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. ---------- Respondents ----------- 4 5.7.2011 Having heard Mr. Amit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Jai Prakash University as also Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, counsel for the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner will have definitely a right to know as to why he was not given the benefit of two advance increments in the pay fixation made by the State Government, vide Annexure-5 to the writ application. It is the case of the petitioner that he was similarly situated as that of Dr. Awadh Kishore Prasad, Dr. Harendra Mohan Roy 2 and late Dr. Tribhuwan Prasad Sinha but, still he was sought to be discriminated in the matter of grant of two advance increments for completing Ph.D. Mr. Prakash, in this context, also placed reliance on a clarification issued by the University Grant Commission vide its letter dated 31.8.2001. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the J.P. University and Mr. Anis Akhtar on behalf of the State, however, are not in a position to make any positive statement as they have not filed any counter affidavit. The guess work of Mr. Shivendra Kishore that the petitioner was not qualified to be given such advance increments may not inspire much confidence to this Court and to come to a positive conclusion, inasmuch as, such an impression of learned Counsel of the University is not based on any firm decision/policy of the Government/University. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to file self-contained representation to the Registrar of the University claiming two advance increments for his completing Ph.D. 3 and in the event, the Registrar of the University with the prior permission of the Vice Chancellor would find that the petitioner was entitled for such grant of advance increment, he would place the matter before the State Government for a correction/revision in the pay fixation made by the State Government but, if the University itself is satisfied that the petitioner was not entitled for grant of such advance increments for Ph.D. and that his case was distinguishable with the aforesaid three persons, it would pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Such exercise by the authority of the University and/or State Government, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled for payment of arrears on account of revision of his pay due to grant of two advance increments, the consequential benefit also must be extended to him in next two months including revision and payment of his retrial 4 dues. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)