IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13874 of 2007 SUNDARESHWAR MISHRA son of Late Ram Nandan Mishra, resident of village- Ratanpur (Bharosa), Post Office- Kalaunzer, via- Pusa, Police Station- Chakmehsi, District- Samastipur…. Petitioner. Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY through its Registrar. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University. 3. Director, Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University. 4. Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University. All at Pusa- Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 5. Principal, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 30.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Rajendra Agricultural University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows: “(i) For a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of UGC Scale to the petitioner for the period April 2000 to January 2002. (ii) For fixing the pay of the petitioner giving him pay protection with Dr. C P Singh, Department of Agronomy, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, Muzaffarpur. (iii) For a further direction to the respondents to refund Rs.18,000/- which has been deducted as the penal rent from the petitioner under the provision of regulations which never came in force. (iv) For direction to the respondents to pay the penal interest upon the entire dues from the date they became due till the dates of their respective payments.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the counter 2 affidavit served on him today would fairly submit that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the payment of salary in UGC pay scale seems to have been redressed. As with regard to realization of penal rent and its refund, the University has already taken a policy decision not to deduct the penal rent and therefore the refund of any amount recovered from the petitioner has to be made to him. Counsel for the petitioner is however quite empathic about the pay parity of the petitioner with his alleged junior namely one Dr. C. P. Singh about which nothing has been said in the counter affidavit. Counsel for the University would submit that probably the University will look into this aspect of pay protection of the petitioner vis a vis Dr. C. P. Singh and if Dr. C. P. Singh was correctly giving such benefit, the University will take appropriate steps to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner in this regard. Recording the aforementioned submission, this court would dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the University to refund the amount of penal rent to the petitioner at the earliest and also take its decision 3 with regard to pay parity of the petitioner vis a vis Dr. C. P Singh strictly in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)