IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12394 of 2006 ARJUN PRASAD MANDAL son of Late Asharfi Mandal, resident of village- Chandpur, post office and police station- Amdanda, District- Bhagalpur, a retired Security Supervisor, Bihar Agriculture College Sabour, Bhagalpur. . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY Bihar, through its Registrar having its Headquarter at and post office- Pusa District- Samastipur. 2. the vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post office- Pusa, police station- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 3. The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post office pusa, District- Samastipur. 4. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post office- Pusa, Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 5. The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar at and Post Office- Pusa, Police Station- Pusa, District- Samastipur. 6. The Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, at and post office Pusa, Police Station- Pusa District- Samastipur. 7. The Associate Dean-cum-Principal Bihar Agriculture College Sabour, Rajendra Agricultural University, Post Office and Police Station- Sabour, District Bhagalpur. .. Respondents. ----------- 3. 17.08.2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Upadhayay, learned counsel for Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(I) Issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the reasoned order bearing No. 09/Legal/04/Cs/RAU, dated 16.2.2006 duly communicated through the Associate Dean Cum Principal, Bihar Agriculture College Sabour, Bhagalpur vide his Memo No. 3650 dated 28.02.2006 2 (Annexure-21) thereby and thereunder the claims of the petitioner to grant the pay scale of the post of Security Supervisor i.e. Rs.325- 525/- with effect from 18.7.1980 with its revisions from 1.4.1981, 1.1.1986 and 1.1.1996 in terms of 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Revisions duly accepted and implemented in the University, has been illegally rejected without considering the strong grounds and in violation of the order of this Hon‟ble Court as also the recommendation of the Selection Committee. (II) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent University to grant the prescribed pay scale of the post of security supervisor i.e. Rs.325- 525/- with effect from 11.07.1979 in accordance with office order no. II-Estt-Aptt- 075/78-539 dated 18.7.1980 (Annexure-6), with its revision to Rs.680-965/- w.e..f. 1.1.1981 vide University letter no. 334 dated 24.02.1982 (Annexure-3), Rs. 1320-2040/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in terms of letter No. III/Bud /Misc. 503/RAU dated 20.2.1990 (Annexure-4) and Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996 in terms of office order No. 571 dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure-5) with First Time Bound Promotion on completion of 10 years of service with effect from 11.07.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. The petitioner may also be granted further promotions under the Assured Career Progression scheme with effect from 9.8.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- and on completion of 24 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from 11.7.2003. (III) Issuance of declaration that denial of the prescribed pay scale of the post of Security Supervisor from the due date is illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction and the Reasoned order passed by the respondent at Annexure 21 denying the pay 3 scale to the petitioner is liable to be set aside being violation of Article 14 (doctrine of equal pay for equal work) of the Constitution of India as well as the order of this Hon‟ble Court without any valid ground be declared as void abinito.” Though Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has addressed this Court on several aspects, one which would really clinch the issue is the nature of impugned order. He would submit that the petitioner had invoked the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ on the ground that he too was duly qualified for the post of Security Supervisor and being an ex-serviceman equivalent to Hawardar and he was entitled for the pay-scale which was given to the Security Supervisor at the University headquarters. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when this Court therefore had directed the authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner by an order dated 30.8.2005 in CWJC No. 7805 of 2004, it was expected that University will consider the grievance of the petitioner with an open mind and at least briefly record the reasons even if the claim of the petitioner was not allowed. In this context, he has referred to the detailed representation filed by the petitioner running into 11 full escape pages 4 wherein the petitioner had raised various facets for claiming parity of the post of Security Supervisor at the University Headquarter with the consequential pay-scale and has submitted that there is no consideration to the aspects raised by the petitioner in the impugned order. Counsel for the University had tried to defend the impugned order by taking a plea that the University had always maintained quantitative and qualitative difference in the post and pay-scale of the employees at the University Headquarter and its constituent units and since the appointment of the petitioner was made for the constituent unit in a prescribed pay-scale of Rs.180-242 by keeping a post of Class IV employee in abeyance, it was difficult for the University to make a departure only in the case of the petitioner for giving him the pay-scale of Security Supervisor of the University Headquarters. Counsel for the University has also tried to take a plea that the qualification for the post of Security Supervisor at the University Headquarter had not only required an ex-army man to have held the post of Hawardar or Subedar but also in the pay-scale of Rs.1200 to 1800/-, 5 which the petitioner was not possessing at the time of his appointment in the constituent unit of the University. In the considered opinion of this Court, the cryptic order passed by the Director Administration under the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not deal with the facts and specially that part of claim of the petitioner that he was qualified and entitled for post in the pay-scale of Security Supervisor in the University headquarters inasmuch as a rank of signal man in the army was equivalent to Hawaldar/Subedar. Apart from the fact that the concept of equal pay for equal work has to be enforced in rare of the rarest cases, the said concept has also inherent in limitation in the eye of law and therefore once the petitioner had undertaken to establish that he was entitled to pay-scale of Security Supervisor at the Headquarters Level, the authorities were at least required to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in his representation in the light of settled principle of the requirement of fulfilling the test of equal pay for equal work. Apparently, that has not been done by the authorities of University while passing impugned order and 6 therefore this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is accordingly quashed and the matter is remitted to the Vice-Chancellor of Rajendra Agriculture University who would now reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the facts stated and the grounds taken in the detailed representation filed by the petitioner on 29.9.2005 vide Annexure-20 to the writ petition. The Vice-Chancellor of the University must pass his own speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if he finds the petitioner entitled for payment of higher emolument either at par with the Security Supervisor at University Headquarters or to any other pay-scale, the financial benefit thereof also must be given to the petitioner by way of actual cash component from 30.8.2005 i.e. when this Court had earlier remitted the mater while disposing of the first writ petition on the subject filed by the petitioner being CWJC No. 7804 of 2004. The petitioner will also be entitled for payment of his retirement benefit in the revised pay-scale of Security 7 Supervisor, if his claim is allowed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not put its final word on such claim of the petitioner by way of equal pay for equal work and has only directed the Vice- Chancellor of the University to take his independent decision strictly in accordance with law. Such exercise, however, must be completed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)