IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2047 of 2007 Vijay Kumar Sinha aged about 48 years, son of Parmeshwar Dayal, presently posted as accountant, Bihar Council on Science and Technology, resident of Dariyapur Gola Road, Nala Road, P.S. Kadam Kuan, District- Patna …. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar 2. The Bihar Council on Science and Technology, through the Chairman, Executive Committee, Maurya Lok, Patna 3. The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar cum the Vice-Chairman, Executive Committee, Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Maurya Lok, Patna 4. The Director, Science and Technology Department, Government of Bihar cum the Secretary, Executive Committee, Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Maurya Lok, Patna 5. The Chairman, Executive Committee Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Maurya Lok, Patna 6. The Project Director, Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Maurya Lok, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 05/ 12.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is serving on the post of Accountant in the Bihar Council on Science and Technology, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Council) which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He has filed this writ 2 petition praying, inter alia, to direct the State- respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- in the light of the recommendations made by the 5th Pay Revision Committee constituted by the State of Bihar. In this connection, petitioner has brought to my notice the resolution of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar, bearing Memo No. 3435 dated 8.6.1999, Annexure-2 whereunder the State Government approved grant of higher scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- to the Accountant, provided the Accountant was directly appointed. For Accountant promoted from the post of Bill Clerk the scale of Rs. 4000- 6000/- was approved. For the Accountant serving in the Housing Board scale of Rs. 4500 – 7000/- was approved. In the light of the resolution of the State Government dated 8.6.1999, Annexure-2, the Executive Committee of the Council considered revision of pay of its employees in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000, Annexure-3 and resolved to grant the Accountants serving in the Council the scale of Rs. 5000 – 8000/-, provided the Accountant was directly appointed as Accountant with graduate qualification 3 and also possessed the other qualifications required for appointment as Senior Auditor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was directly appointed as Accountant and is graduate, yet is not being allowed the higher scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- as the Secretary of the Council ignoring the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council taken in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000, Annexure-3 issued order bearing Memo No. 183 dated 21.10.2005, Annexure-6 whereunder the Accountant serving in the Council are granted the scale of Rs. 4000 – 6000/- in the light of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee, which is the lower scale allowed under the recommendation of the 5th Pay Revision Committee to those Accountants who have been promoted from the post of Bill Clerk. Petitioner having been appointed as Accountant directing was entitled to higher scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- in the light of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council taken in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that at 4 the time of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Accountant, the minimum qualification required for such post was only graduate and petitioner being a graduate was directly appointed on such post and all along allowed scale which is allowed to a directly appointed Accountant. Learned counsel further submitted that the order bearing Memo No. 183 dated 21.10.2005, Annexure-6 reducing the scale payable to the directly appointed Accountants in the Council (Rs. 4000 – 6000/-) has been issued without the approval of the Executive Committee of the Council and in contravention of the earlier decision of the Executive Committee of the Council taken in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000, Annexure-3. In this connection, learned counsel referred to the statement made in paragraph 6 of the reply affidavit dated 13.9.2010 filed in the Court on 15.9.2010. Such statement has not been disputed by the counsel for the State although he has filed 2nd supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent no.6 on 30.9.2010. 4. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty for me to conclude that the Secretary of the Council 5 has issued order bearing Memo No. 183 dated 21.10.2005, Annexure-6 contrary to the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Council in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000, Annexure-3. 5. In view of my findings above, the order of the Secretary bearing Memo No. 183 dated 21.10.2005, Annexure-6 is quashed so far it relates to the Accountants serving the Council with direction to the Secretary of the Council to issue fresh order in regard to the grant of revised pay scale to the Accountants serving the Council pursuant to the decision of the Executive Committee of the Council taken in its 57th meeting held on 5.2.2000, Annexure-3, as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Secretary of the Council. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)