IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4459 of 2005 GIRIJA PRAJAPATI, SON OF SHRI RAM DAS PRAJAPATI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE OF SMT. PRATIBHA THAKUR, TEACHERS COLONY, PURANI BAZAR, JHAJHA, P.O. AND P.S. JHAJHA, DISTRICT-JAMUI ………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, TILKA MANJHI, BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 3. REGISTRAR, TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 4. FINANCE OFFICER, TILKA MANJHI, BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 5. PRINCIPAL, D.S.M. COLLEGE, JHAJHA, JAMUI . -----------Respondents 4. 28.09.2010 Having heard Mr. Gautam Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University as with regard to the following prayer of the petitioner; “That this writ petition has been filed, for quashing the order of respondent no.2, Vice-Chancellor, T.M.B. University, Bhagalpur communicated through letter bearing no. ACC/19344 dated 28.8.2003, issued by the respondent no.4, Finance Officer, TMB University, Bhagalpur, by which it has been intimated that the said respondent no.2, Vice-Chancellor, TMB University Bhagalpur, has approved the provisional pay fixation of the petitioner has been substantially reduced, without any notice or show cause, with retrospective effect, resulting in heavy recurring financial loss and hardship to the petitioner. The writ petition has also been filed, for quashing the order, as contained in 2 letter No. DSMC-216/2000 dated 18.10.2000, issued by the Respondent No.5, Principal, DSM College, Jhajha, by which it has been intimated to the petitioner that Respondent No.2, Vice-Chancellor has fixed his basic pay to Rs.2975/- on the recommendation of the pay evaluation and fixation committee and again as per the order of the said respondent No.2, the pay fixation committee of the University on 29.7.2000 has fixed his basic pay to Rs.2210/- from 1.3.2000 has fixed his basic pay to Rs.2210/- from 1.3.2000. This writ petitioner has also been filed for quashing the order/s, if any, issued by the Respondent No.2, or any other competent authority not yet communicated to the petitioner, after calling the same from the respondent authorities, by which direction/s has been issued to reduce the scale as well as pay of the petitioner, from the salary and pay to which the petitioner is legally entitled, without any notice or show cause or without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This writ petition has also been filed for direction upon the Respondents, particularly the respondent nos. 2 and 3, to restore the scale and pay of the petitioner, to which the petitioner is legally entitled and make payment of arrears of pay along with appropriate rate of interest, immediately. This writ petition ahs also been filed for direction upon respondents, to produce all relevant records, regarding the case of the petitioner before this Hon‟ble Court, for its perusal and consideration in the interest of justice. This writ petition has also been filed, for holding that the petitioner is legally entitled for restoration of his scale as well as pay and payment of his salary in the scale of Rs.2200-4000/- and in its revised scale and also entitled for payment of 3 arrears of salary along with interest immediately.” this Court is of the considered opinion that whenever any employer much less a statutory employer like the University would pass an order for fixation of pay which would be detrimental or prejudicial to the employee even by effecting reduction in his pay the resultant grievance of such employee has to be looked into and answered by the University by passing a reasoned order on his representation. In the present case, the order under challenge is dated 28.8.2003 communicated by the Finance Officer of the University to the Principal of D.S.M. College, Jhajha, Munger (hereinafter referred to as the „College‟) enclosing the pay fixation of the petitioner dated 2.6.2003 allowing the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2750 on 1.1.1986 and the salary of the petitioner of Rs. 2570 as on 1.3.2003. It has to be noted that earlier when the University on the basis of the same pay fixation order of the State government in resolution 841 dated 13th April, 1991 had made the fixation in the month of 1999, the salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2975 4 per month and which was again sought to be reduced by another committee by fixing the salary of the petitioner to Rs. 2210 as on 1.3.2000. In that view of the matter when the subsequent pay fixation dated 28.8.2003 had put the petitioner to a disadvantages position of being placed on a lower pay scale than what was fixed and paid to him, the authority was definitely under obligation to inform the petitioner the reasons for such reduction. It is here that the issue raised by the petitioner will be required to be gone into by the authority inasmuch as the petitioner‟s challenge to the aforementioned pay fixation is based on the submission that no such retrospective amendment in the pay-scale was permissible and to that extent the petitioner relies on University order dated 22.6.1990 as contained in Annexure-7 to contend that whatever been already allowed in his favour on 22.6.1990 could not be reduced to his disadvantage. In the opinion of this Court, there can be no such blanket proposition of law with regard to pay fixation specially in the case of the University employees inasmuch as the employees of the University are to be 5 paid their salary as per the pay fixation allowed by the State Government. The University in fact does not have its own pay scales and it has to only implement the government decision and therefore, for any reason if the earlier implementation of the government decision by the University was made an incorrect manner, the University or its authority could not be stopped in re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner. It is, however, a different thing that if there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the University will not be entitled to also claim refund of the excess amount allegedly paid to the petitioner. The second aspect with regard to the implementation of the general order dated 21.7.1990 as contained in Annexure-8 this court would only indicate that Annexure-8 may not be settler on the issue inasmuch as Annexure-8 is a document of Bhagalpur University dated 21.7.1990 whereas the pay fixation had to be made in terms of the order of the government dated 13th April, 1991 and therefore this court would direct the University to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner by also taking into account the order of University dated 6 31.5.1990 / 22.6.1990 as contained in Annexure-7 but the same shall not be conclusive as it would be deemed to be amended or corrected to the extent by the subsequent government fixation of pay in its order dated 13.7.1991. Finally, as with regard to the plea of discrimination though there are wholly insufficient pleading in the writ petition inasmuch as paragraph 21 of the writ application does not deal with any name of similar situated person, but the petitioner has made out a detailed pleading in the rejoinder affidavit by stating the example of Rajendra Singh & Girija Prajapati whose name finding at Serial No. 32 and 36 of pay fixation statement in Annexure-12. This aspect of the matter being a pure question of fact therefore would be only looked into by the University while deciding the actual entitlement of the petitioner specially when the petitioner also relies on the same document and the same decision as relied by the University i.e. Resolution No. 841 dated 13th April, 1991 providing the pay scale of different post including the post of Librarian and other staff of Librarian. 7 At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has also laid special emphasis on the note portion of the order dated 13.4.1991 as against the post of Librarian for the colleges providing the pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/- with a note that such pay scale would be permissible to only such employee who having qualification as prescribed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 15.7.1986. The submission of the learned counsel for the university here also must be noted that as per the University records the petitioner on 15.7.1986 did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, he may not be entitled for the pay scale of Rs.2000-3800 in terms of pay fixation decision dated 13.4.1991. This court would not like to put any final word in a matter like this where there are so many questions of facts to be gone into and therefore, this court would only quash the pay fixation statement as contained in Annexure-1 dated 28.8.2003 and remit the matter back to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for taking a fresh decision. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner is given liberty to file a self-contained representation 8 enclosing all the necessary evidence for claiming his entitlement in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 as on 1.1.1986 and its consequent resultant benefits. This writ application is accordingly, disposed with the direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to ensure that an order strictly in accordance with the Government decision on the pay fixation must be passed within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation along with a copy of this order and if the petitioner becomes entitled for any monetary benefit, the same shall also be extended to him in next one month. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Amit/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)