WP(C) 4596/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A.ANSARI Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Choudhury, l earned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. None has appeared o n behalf of the remaining respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner submitted that while worki ng as Principal Private Secretary to the Lokayukta, Govt of Assam, with scale of pay of Rs. 3275 - 5050/-, he applied, pursuant to an advertisement, dated 2 8.5.94, for selection and appointment to the post of Secretary to the Vice Chanc ellor, Tezpur University, Tezpur, in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/-. On be ing selected, the petitioner was appointed, on 20.12.94 , as the Secretary to th e Vice Chancellor, in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/-. The petitioner accord ingly joined and his service was, vide order, dated 20.01.97, confirmed with effect from 15.02.96. Thereafter, in terms of the guidelines, issued by the Univ ersity Grants Commission revising scales of pay, the scale of pay of the petitio ner too was revised, on 26.11.98, to Rs. 12,000 - 18,300/- with effect from 01.0 1.96. On 28.07.99, the petitioner was posted as Special Officer, in the Office of the Controller of Examinaion, Tezpur University, the post of Special Officer carrying the same pay scale and status as that of the post of Secretary to the Vice Chancellor. However, on 14.6.01, an order was issued by respondent No.3, namely, Registrar, Tezpur Central University, Tezpur, whereby the petitioner’s pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5700/- was reduced to Rs. 2000-3500/-. E ven the petitioner’s revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000 - 18,300/- was reduced, by the order aforementioned, to Rs. 6500 -10,500/-. The ground of reduction, in th e pay scales of the petitioner, was that the Secretary to the Vice Chancellor, in other Universities, had been receiving the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 20 00 -3500/- and their revised pay scale is 6500/- to 10,500/-. Aggrieved by the reduction of the pay scales as indicated hereinbefore by order, dated 14.6.01, the petitioner has put to challenge the same by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts, as averred in the writ petition, are not in dispute. 4. At the time of hearing, it has been submitted, on behalf of the respondents, that the respondents have decided that so far as the present pe titioner, Sri Prafulla Saikia, is concerned, his original pay scale of Rs. 3700- 5700/- would not be interfered with nor would his revised pay scale of Rs. 12,00 0/- to 18,300/- would be interfered with and that this arrangement shall remain confined to the petitioner shall continue until retirement of the present incu mbent i.e. the petitioner herein. 5. In view of the above, Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petition er, prays for setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 14.6.2001, fo r, according to the learned counsel, if the impugned order is not set aside and quashed , this writ petition would become infructuous. 6. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 14.6.2001, is hereby set aside and quashed making it, however, clear that the pay scale, which the petitioner had been enjoying before the date of passin g of the impugned order, dated 14.6.01, would be allowed to be enjoyed by the p etitioner and he would also be entitled to receive further revision of his pay s cale as and when the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 18,300/- is revised, b ut this arrangement would remain confined to the present petitioner alone and wo uld not apply, unless the respondents so decide, to other persons, who may be si milarly situated. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s tands disposed of. No order as to costs.