IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.328 of 2007 MD.WASHIM AHMAD son of Late Md. Muzahir Hussain resident of Mohalla- New Professor Colony Station Road Girhinda P.S. Sheikhpura District- Sheikhpura… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE V.C.,TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR, University, Bhagalpur. 2. The Registrar Tilka Manjhi Bhagapur University, Bhagalpur. 3. The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, P.S. & District- Bhagalpur…. Respondents. ------------- 5. 09.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That the present writ application is for an appropriate direction/directions to the respondents concern directing therein, to fix the pay- scale of the petitioner as Rs.14940 instead of Rs.12,840/- since 1.1.96 for the post of Reader and accordingly to pay the same along with arrears with interest at the market value.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned relief would submit that when the University had notified the promotion with effect from 15.2.1990 by order dated 17.2.1998 and it had accepted in a show-cause filed in MJC No. 3164 of 2005 that the petitioner’s pay had been fixed at Rs.14940/- in UGC revised pay implemented on 1.4.1996, the steps taken by the University for payment of entire retirement benefit 2 by treating his pay-scale to Rs.12840 seems to be wholly unjustified. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, would submit that instruction received by him and consequently, the counter affidavit filed is confined to payment of retirement benefit as made to the petitioner and the issue of fixation of salary of the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996 has not been gone into the counter affidavit. One thing is very clear that the pay fixation upon revised pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1996 had taken place during the period the petitioner was in service and at least before his retirement on 31.1.2000. An employee who retired from service in the year 2000 cannot be allowed to now raise the dispute with regard to pay fixation of the year 1996 and to that extent this Court would find the claim of the petitioner to be totally stale in fact suffering from the vice of delay and laches. The grievance of the petitioner however is that once the University in the show-cause filed in his contempt application had admitted the basic pay of the 3 petitioner to be Rs.14940/- and therefore it cannot now be allowed to take a plea that the petitioner has rightfully been given the pay fixation of Rs.12840/-. This however is a new piece of argument which is not supported from the averment made in the writ petition. Nonetheless, if the University has gone on record by filing an affidavit before this Court that the petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs.,14940/- by way of show cause reply in the contempt petition, it is always expected that the University will honour such statements unless the salary of the petitioner has thereafter been reduced under any valid order. As noted above, this aspect has remained unanswered in the counter affidavit and therefore this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the University by fling a representation enclosing copy of the show-cause filed in the contempt application and if it is found that the petitioner’s salary was fixed at Rs.14940/- as was clearly stated in paragraph 7 of the said show-cause, the University will be bound by the same unless it has been modified/reduced in accordance with law. Such claim of the petitioner however would only be confined to 4 payment of post retirement benefit and on that basis the petitioner will not be entitled to claim arrears of salary. Such exercise however must be completed by the University within a period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner and in the event the difference of retirement benefit on account of enhancement of basic pay of the petitioner as claimed in this writ petition, is allowed, its payment also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of passing of such order. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into the issue as with regard to the merit of entitlement of the basic pay of the petitioner to Rs.14940/- or correctness of earlier pay fixation of the petitioner to Rs. 12840/- per moth inasmuch as this aspect of the matter has to be gone by the University strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)