IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1042 of 1998 Ram Priti Singh, son of Sri Mahadeo Singh, Resident of village & P.O. Ramdiri, Tola Nakli, District Begusarai, at present Music Teacher, Blinds High School, Kadamkuan, Patna-3 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Social Welfare, Bihar, Patna 5. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 6. The Regional Development Officer, Patna Division, Patna 7. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Bihar, Patna 8. The District Magistrate, Patna 9. The District Welfare Officer, Patna 10. The Principal Blinds High School, Kadamkuan, Patna … Respondents --------------------------------- 4. 2.9.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. When this writ application was filed on 3.2.1998 the prayer of the petitioner was as follows: “i) For commanding the respondents to fit the petitioner at an appropriate level in the scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 which is corresponding revised scale of Rs. 880-1510 in which the petitioner was appointed and got his salary. ii) For commanding the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee and Anomaly Removal Committee whereby it has been recommended that the scale of Music teacher at Blinds High School, Patna after revision should be Rs. 1640-2900 with a remark that pre-revised scale should be granted as Rs. 880-1510 as in case of the petitioner is pre-revised scale, was wrongly shown as Rs. 785-1210. iii) For restraining the respondents from making any deductions from the salary of the petitioner for the 2 alleged excess payment on the ground of his pre- revised scale of Rs. 785-1210.” Counsel for the petitioner in fact has referred to the advertisement issued in the month of October/ November, 1987 for the post of Music teacher in Government Blind High School, Kadamkuan, Patna with the pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 as also to the consequential order of appointment dated 15.4.1988 showing the petitioner to be appointed on the post of Music teacher in the aforesaid school in the same pay scale i.e. Rs. 880-1510. The grievance of the petitioner, however, was that when the pay scales were revised with effect from 1.1.1986 the post of Music teacher in the blind school was given a lessor pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 by treating pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 785-1210 and in fact it was on that basis that the petitioner had represented his case before the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee constituted by the State Government which had noted the case of the petitioner and had found a case of omission and had accordingly, recommended for its correction of Rs. 880-1510 (pre-revised) and Rs. 1640-2900 (revised). The petitioner, however, has stated in the writ application that this recommendation of Anomaly Removal Committee was not accepted by the State Government which had reiterated the same revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 for the post of Music teacher. Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in fact had specifically emphasized that when the post of Music teacher on which the petitioner was appointed had required the qualification of Sangeet Prabhakar which is 3 equivalent to the degree of B.A. trained, the petitioner ought to have been treated alike any Assistant Teacher of a High School in B.A. trained pay scale. Counsel for the State in fact does not throw any further light beyond what was stated in the writ application and there is no discernable principle on the basis of which the State Government had rejected the specific recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee in the case of the petitioner which reads as follows: “ Pre-revised scale Revised scale 12.9.1 Music Teacher, Rs. 785-1210 Rs. 1400-2600 Blind High School, Patna (Sl.3, page 39) Shri Ram Prit Singh has represented that he has been appointed to the post of Music teacher in the Blind High School, Patna, vide Memo no. 484, dated 15th April, 1988 from the Regional Development Officer, Patna Division. He has also submitted copy of Welfare Department letter no. 2896, dated 30th December, 1989 extending the tenure of posts for his school for the financial year 1989-90. The pay scale mentioned against the post of Music Teacher is Rs. 880-1510. The Welfare department letter dated 19th March, 1982 referred to earlier also shows a decision to upgrade the post of Music Teacher. We therefore recommend that the pre-revised and revised scale be corrected as Rs. 880-1510 and Rs. 1640- 2900 respectively, This is a case of omission only.” As a matter of fact this much is well settled that the person appointed on a higher pay scale cannot be reduced to a lower pay scale on any ground whatsoever other than by way of 4 punishment. The petitioner had applied for the post of Music teacher which had the pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 and the same scale was also given to him in his appointment letter. The petitioner, therefore, would be entitled for grant of pay scale of Rs. 880-1510. Now the question would be when Pay Revision Committee Report came it had envisaged fixation of pay with effect from 1.1.1986 and only protection that a person who was appointed after 1.1.1986 got that his appointment was taken to be made in the higher revised pay scale. That would mean that the appointment of the petitioner would be deemed to have been made in the recommended pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and if the petitioner on the date of his appointment was drawing the higher salary beyond the initial pay of Rs. 1400 he will be entitled for pay protection in view of fundamental Rules also made applicable by the provision of Rule 78 of the Bihar Service Code. In that view of the matter, while the enhanced pay scale of the post of Music teacher would be in domain of the executive instruction it must be made clear that the petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 till the Pay Revision Committee Report had replaced the pay scale by Rs. 1400-2600. It is, however, to be noted that the State Government had fixed the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as a replacement pay scale of Rs. 880-1510 for the Assistant Teacher (graduate trained) in the Blind High School, Patna and Darbhanga while the petitioner being a Music teacher in view of the order of the State Government would become entitled for revised pay scale of Rs. 5 1400-2600. It is this part of the matter which probably has received attention of the authorities ultimately in the year 2007, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been granted revised pay scale of Rs. 1600-2780 in place of Rs. 1400-2600 and Rs. 5500-9000 in place of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 respectively. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the revised pay scale of the post of Assistant Teacher graduate trained was Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986 and Rs. 5500-9000 for the graduate trained teachers of the Blind School. Considering the aforementioned aspects as the major portion of grievance of the petitioner stands redressed on account of his grant of pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with effect from 1.1.1996 this Court would direct the Finance Commissioner to now reconsider only that part of the grievance of the petitioner, whereby and whereunder he ought to have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in place of Rs. 1600-2780 especially when either before 1.1.1986 or after 1.1.1996 he has been given the same pay scale of the graduate trained teacher. This Court hopes and believes that keeping in view of the specific singular case of the petitioner of Music Teacher in a Blind School the Government would find it expedient in the ends of justice to give the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in place of Rs. 1600-2780 which should not make much difference especially when he has already been granted the same pay scale of Rs. 5500- 9000 for the period 1.1.1996 onwards. 6 This Court hopes and believes that such exercise will be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled to any further financial benefit, its consequential benefit will also be extended to him in next three months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/